Common Fisheries Policy
We come to the peace and calm of the debate on the common fisheries policy. I will rely on Mr Finnie to restore peace and calm by starting the debate.
At Tuesday's fisheries council meeting in Luxembourg, the European Commission took the opportunity to flesh out some of its proposals in a presentation on its published documents on the reform of the common fisheries policy. The Commission acknowledged that the CFP has not worked and I think that everyone who was present at the Luxembourg council agreed. The review represents an opportunity—
Order. I interrupt the minister, because several groups of members are holding conversations in the chamber. I point out to members that the next debate has begun and I ask them to clear the chamber quickly, so that the minister can engage properly in his speech and can have the full attention of the remaining members.
Like you, Presiding Officer, I am astonished that members want to leave during such an important debate.
Today's debate is the Parliament's first opportunity to discuss the outline proposals and to begin an informed debate on what the priorities of the Scottish Parliament and of the Scottish stakeholders—Scottish fishermen—will be and on what we must do to secure a satisfactory agreement in Brussels.
There is a variety of reasons why the review matters to us, but there are two in particular. First, fisheries are important to Scotland. As Scotland accounts for some two thirds of the United Kingdom activity, we feel the social and economic implications more than most of the rest of the UK. Secondly, despite many efforts, stocks are still under threat, so we need a common fisheries policy that promotes sustainable fisheries.
Let me be blunt. The science may not be perfect, but it is certainly good enough to tell us that most commercial stocks are outside safe biological limits. For example, we know that North sea cod is now some 60 per cent below the recommended minimum spawning stock level. Those are serious issues. [Interruption.]
The First Minister has returned to the chamber, but frankly I think that he might be disappointed by the package that he has just picked up. [Interruption.] I was right. Obviously, my answers at question time were not as interesting as the First Minister's answers.
The collapse of those stocks will become a certainty unless we change the fundamental policy. We must secure effective and fundamental reform.
The Commission's comprehensive and radical proposals contain many principles that should be supported. I see three key features. First, the Commission wants better conservation through an end to the distorting subsidies for fleet renewal. It wants a better balance between catching capacity and stocks as well as better informed multi-annual decisions on key controls such as quota levels.
In the minister's assessment of fleet policy, will he share with the chamber his reflections on the UK paper on the Commission's green paper? The UK paper, which has been circulated to members, does not mention Scottish decommissioning. Will the Scottish decommissioning package that was funded by the Executive be taken into account in the overall balance of the Commission's proposals on restructuring?
I will come to that when I deal with effort control, which is a crucial issue.
Secondly, the Commission has proposed the continuation of a number of key arrangements on access to resources. Those include the link between the Hague preference and the crucial issue of relative stability. Continued access to the Shetland box is also proposed.
Will the minister take an intervention?
No. I want to outline the three main issues before accepting any interruptions.
Thirdly, the Commission has made important proposals to improve governance by strengthening the regional dimension, involving stakeholders more directly and giving member states greater powers within the six and 12-mile limits.
Let me return to fishing effort and structural measures. The Commission proposes two basic solutions to the imbalance between the Community's fishing capacity and its fish stocks. The proposals are that there should be a reduction in the amount of fishing effort and a reduction in the capacity of the fleets. However, the devil will be in the detail, which will need to be negotiated. Inaction is not an option, as that would simply leave hard-pressed fishermen to fish even harder. Not to take part would be to leave fishermen in a spiral of decline.
The Commission has advocated significant reductions of between 30 per cent and 60 per cent in fishing effort. The amount of the reduction depends on the fisheries concerned. The Commission also wants to embed so-called effort control in the quota-setting process. The Commission has not proposed any specific national targets for fleet capacity, as it will be up to member states to decide how to meet the targets. The Commission proposes to focus the available structural funding on decommissioning and related social measures.
What all that means in practice is not clear, but one thing is clear. In answer to Tavish Scott's question, I must say first that we cannot rule out further effort reduction. The alternative to further reduction might be greatly reduced quotas and total allowable catches. If we were to leave things alone and allow stocks to collapse, that might be worse than the present situation. Secondly—I stress this point to Tavish Scott and to others—Scotland is ahead of the game because of our £25 million decommissioning scheme, which will remove 18 per cent of the eligible fleet. By any measure, that is a significant contribution. I have made it absolutely clear that the Commission must take that into account when it comes to its final conclusions. As I understand it, Mr John Farnell of the Commission has accepted that argument. That is helpful.
I spoke to the Commission yesterday, and to Maja Kirchner, Franz Fischler's chef de cabinet, who said that that is not the proposal, that John Farnell was wrong to make that commitment, and that the UK's reduction under multi-annual guidance programme IV would not be taken into account, because if it were, Spain's reduction would also be taken into account, and Spain would get a credit.
We did not make that reduction within MAGP IV; we made it as a voluntary measure. We are not going to trade who spoke to whom, where and when. I had a direct meeting with Commissioner Fischler, and I made it clear to him that I will not change my view that any proposal that does not take account of Scotland's attempts at effort control over the past few years will not be acceptable.
I must move on. Mr Farnell may or may not be right, but the people who will decide ultimately will be the European Commission. The view that I will express as part of the UK delegation could not be clearer. We have to aim to protect other aspects of our fisheries structural funding. We have to be clear about that.
On the question of relative stability and access arrangements, the Commission's proposals aim to keep relative stability—that is extremely important—and to embrace the Hague preferences and the 12-mile zone.
What steps is the minister taking, or does he plan to take, to ensure that Scotland's historical fishing rights are enshrined in the common fisheries policy in perpetuity?
If the member is asking about relative stability, enshrining the Hague preference into the common fisheries agreement—in which it is not enshrined at present—ensuring the continuation of the Shetland box, and adding regional and zonal management, I can tell him that all the key elements that have been put forward by the fishermen, their organisations and members of this Parliament are covered in the current principal documents that have been set out by the Commission. The task will be to ensure that the final version enshrines those elements in the agreement, which will be reached by the 15 member states. It would be foolish of me to say that every i has been dotted and every t has been crossed, but I am setting out our absolute determination that Scottish priorities should and must be reflected in the final agreement.
The proposals support the retention of the Shetland box, but there is mention of a further review by the end of 2003. We have provided the Commission with evidence in support of the economic and conservation benefits of the Shetland box. I will challenge the Commission on the need for any further unnecessary reviews after the CFP has been finalised.
The expiry of the transition period set out in the accession treaties means that Spain and Portugal will gain access to the North sea, apart from the Shetland box and the 12-mile zone. However, they will have access without quota. The Commission is not proposing to disrupt existing relative stability shares, or to give Spain or Portugal any quota shares in the North sea. That is an important point to be borne in mind before taking the excited view that the automatic result of the accession agreements will be that the current position will be totally disrupted without either track record or quota.
What discussions has the minister had with the rest of the United Kingdom about enforcement, should there be an agreement?
The minister must start to wind up.
We will talk to the rest of the UK about enforcement once we have an agreement that we have to enforce. To do otherwise would be a tad premature.
Other issues are to be welcomed. We must welcome the Commission's commitment to produce more proposals on how to deal with the science. The Commission's commitment to an ecosystem approach is not as well spelled out as it might be, so it has to be spelled out in greater detail, as do the commitments on control and inspection. In addition, in the provisional documents, the Commission recognises the important role that aquaculture can play.
The proposals will require hard decisions to be taken, but the review affords an opportunity that we in Scotland cannot miss. I accept that the Commission's proposals need to be teased out and challenged where necessary, but I also accept that change is needed. I welcome the input of Parliament today in expressing its views and contributing to an extraordinarily important debate. I promise that we will continue to work hard to ensure that Scottish priorities are taken into account and are reflected in the final CFP document when it goes before the Commission later in the year.
I move,
That the Parliament welcomes publication of the European Commission's proposals for reform of the Common Fisheries Policy; notes that Scottish priorities are reflected in the proposals; supports a collaborative and regional approach to reform involving the fishing industry and other stakeholders; acknowledges the need for a more sustainable balance between the catching capability of the fleet and available fish stocks, and recognises that a process of tough negotiations with other member states now lies ahead.
I do not know whether the minister attended the "Taste of Grampian" food festival in Inverurie on Saturday, where I tasted many delicacies from our seas. That food festival shows the fishing industry's value to Scotland. We should remember that we have a fleet that goes to sea virtually daily to bring fish to the table. Too often, fishermen must make the ultimate sacrifice to do that.
We all know that the catch and processing industries sustain employment in many coastal communities that would not otherwise exist. The industry runs through the fabric of Scotland. Today's debate is about securing the industry's future. The CFP has a role, because we cannot manage stocks alone, but the one-size-fits-all approach, the political horse-trading and Scotland's lack of influence down the years have led to a decline in stocks and related employment.
The industry involves thousands of talented individuals and companies and our fishing communities rely on a good outcome for the CFP. We owe it to them all to get the new CFP right. The policy must reflect Scotland's needs by protecting our historic fishing rights, treating conservation as the number 1 priority and putting economic and social objectives at its heart. If we can achieve that balance, we will secure the future for our fishing communities.
I tell the minister that there is much to be welcomed in the new CFP and that some proposals have much cross-party support. We welcome the retention of the essential six and 12-mile limits, the new emphasis on multi-annual management of fisheries and the emphasis on technical conservation measures. We know that we cannot rely on TACs alone and that we must eliminate discards as much as possible, although any measures must be sensitive to Scotland's mixed fishery.
We welcome the level playing field for enforcement in our seas. The lack of a level playing field has been a sore point for many years. However, we are concerned about the proposal to impose quota penalties. That might have implications for relative stability, if quotas went to other nations and they were allowed to build up a track record through that.
We welcome the plans to bring fleet capacity throughout Europe into line with available resources. It is imperative that other countries share the pain. As we all know, this nation has been through the pain in recent years. It is now the turn of other nations.
We welcome the retention of the Shetland box, but are concerned about the question marks that remain over it. We also welcome regional advisory committees, which are a step in the right direction of moving away from the disastrous one-size-fits-all approach that the CFP has adopted. However, the committees must have genuine influence. The industry will sign up to the new CFP only if those committees are seen to have influence in final decision making. The Commission has said only that it may explain how it dealt with committees' advice. That is very kind of the Commission, but as the European Committee's report on reforming the CFP said, the regional committees must have more influence than the CFP documents say that they will have.
Will the member give way?
I am delighted to.
Does Richard Lochhead accept that if a regional advisory committee that comprised fishermen, management, Government agents and scientists made a unanimous report to the Commission, the Commission would be foolhardy to turn it down?
The Commission would be foolhardy to turn down such advice, but it has done so in the past. Only this week, the Commission ignored the united voice of the deep-water fishery from not only Scotland, but the rest of the UK.
Science is important and the SNP welcomes the improving link between science and the Commission's final decision making. That link is imperative. From the debacle over last year's prawn quota, we all know what happens when the science is not listened to and how the industry's trust over European decision making on fisheries is lost. Scientific doubts continue about monkfish and other quotas and over the deep-water fishery, which has just been subjected to shenanigans in Brussels. The Commission's proposed regulations for that fishery must have scientific justification, but do not appear to have it.
I urge the minister to fight to ensure that the European centre for fisheries research and management comes to Scotland, because there is no more appropriate home for it.
I welcome the aquaculture proposals, especially the commitment to further research into aquaculture. However, any expansion of the aquaculture sector in Europe and in Scotland must not come with the price of more industrial fisheries, so the promised research should be into alternative food supplies for salmon farms and aquaculture.
However, all is not rosy and the SNP must highlight its fundamental concerns. The key objective of the exercise is to prevent Scotland's seas from becoming a free-for-all and to retain our historic fishing rights. That is why the principle of relative stability is fundamental—it is the cornerstone of the CFP. On the face of it, we seem safe, but if we dig a little deeper, there is a completely different story.
Chapter 4 of the proposed Council regulation on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the common fisheries policy states:
"The Commission proposes that the allocation of Community fishing opportunities among the Member States, based on the principle of maintaining relative stability of fishing activity, should be maintained."
That sounds safe on the face of it. However, the proposed regulation also states:
"the Commission considers that progress towards more normal economic conditions in the fisheries sector would permit a revision of these arrangements in the longer term."
Equally worrying, section 3.8 of the European Commission's road map on the reform of the common fisheries policy, on the economic management of fisheries in the Union, states:
"The Commission considers that the fisheries sector is still characterised by specific features which make the application of normal economic conditions, such as free competition between producers and freedom of investment, difficult to apply in the short term."
We need those features to be kept to protect Scotland's rights and we do not want them for just the short term; we want them for the medium and long term and the Government has to secure them.
Page 23 of the road map, which must set alarm bells ringing in Scotland, states:
"If the Community takes action to address these issues, on the basis of the proposals now put forward, it will gradually create a climate that will be more favourable to the introduction of more normal economic conditions and the elimination of such barriers to normal economic activity as national allocations of fishing possibilities and the principle of relative stability."
We all know the Commission's agenda; it wants to scrap relative stability and Scotland's historic fishing rights. That might be in the CFP for the short term, but the minister has to go to Europe with his UK counterpart and fight tooth and nail to maintain Scotland's historic fishing rights, for the long term, not for the short term.
Will the member give way?
No, he cannot.
I would love to take an intervention, but I cannot.
I turn briefly to representation in Europe. It has to be battle stations for the Government. The minister faces his biggest test and the last thing that the industry requires in this crucial period is ministerial complacency or naive optimism. Other member states will be queuing up to secure their objectives; Scotland has to do likewise. To ensure that Scottish priorities are reflected in the final CFP, it is imperative that the minister, who represents two thirds of the UK industry, leads from the front. He has to demand that he lead the UK delegation within Europe.
No misleading comments from the First Minister persuade anyone that Scotland leads from the front in fisheries councils. Now, more than at any point in the history of the CFP, is the time for the minister to lead from the front, lead the UK delegation, fight for Scotland and win a deal for Scotland to protect our historic fishing rights and give us a decent CFP.
I move amendment S1M-3197.1, to leave out from "welcomes" to end and insert:
", while welcoming many of the developments in the revised Common Fisheries Policy, calls for the Scottish Executive and European Union to guarantee that Scotland's historic fishing rights will be incorporated into the Common Fisheries Policy in perpetuity; believes that the proposed regional committees must have genuine decision-making powers to make a difference; notes that the EU continues to pursue damaging fisheries policies including the proposed inappropriate regulation of the deep-sea fishery, and calls on the Minister for Environment and Rural Development to demand that he leads the UK's delegation during the forthcoming negotiations in order to secure Scotland's objectives."
The recent news from Brussels is both depressing and infuriating for the Scottish fishing industry. On Monday of this week, Franz Fischler, the EU fisheries commissioner, gave his word that he would protect deep-water species. However, on Tuesday, despite a huge amount of scientific evidence that suggested that TACs were counterproductive to the sustainability of deep-water fisheries, he agreed to the Spanish presidential compromise that means that deep-water species will be regulated primarily through TACs. That means that deep-water species will suffer, some of Scotland's fishermen will suffer and, more importantly, the credibility of Franz Fischler will suffer, because our fishermen will not trust him with the future of stock or CFP reforms.
I appreciate that reading news at third hand makes things difficult, but we have to draw a distinction between saying that Commissioner Fischler had changed his mind to say that he would support the presidency and accusing him of supporting TACs, which were the Commission's compromise. What was fundamentally wrong between Monday and Tuesday—and, as they say at the movies, I was there—was that the commissioner changed his principle about opposing the Commission's presidency.
Herr Fischler did not appear to support the position that would have suited us, which was the idea of permits and an effort-limitation scheme to go along with it.
The UK cannot trust Herr Fischler to look after the stocks if he ignores scientific advice. What guarantee will the Scottish Executive be extracting from the Commission to ensure that the scientific advice will not also be ignored in the reform of the CFP? What will the Scottish Executive do to help the Scottish vessels that fish for deep-water species now that more than 80 per cent of the quota for those species has gone to the French fleet? France may be out of the world cup, but it has had a damn good day in the fish stakes.
The Scottish boats have been left with about 2 per cent of what can now be caught. Let me give an example. Our quota for black scabbard fish is now only 20 tonnes for the year. Last year, one Scottish boat caught 20 tonnes of black scabbard fish in one outing. Other species, such as orange roughy, blue ling, grenadiers, tusk, argentines and deep water sharks have now been handed to the French because they have a longer track record of fishing for those species in our waters than do Scottish fishermen who have only recently started to prosecute that fishery due to the intense pressure on Scotland's traditional stocks. That deep-water fishery was a valuable diversionary tool for the Scottish fleet and now it is gone. TACs have been proved to be a poor consolation tool and have led to huge discards. They are an even poorer tool for the management of deep-water species that inter-swim and therefore cannot be targeted easily as a single species.
In December 2002, the Commission indicated to the UK its preference for a permit scheme for deep-water species alongside a days-at-sea scheme to limit the effort of fishing. That was a good idea. Last week, the Spanish presidency put forward the compromise. On Monday, Fischler stated that the most important thing was the protection of deep-water species, and that the Spanish plan was not acceptable and would not receive his support. However, on Tuesday, the Commission agreed to the proposal and it was passed. Such horse-trading in the Commission pays scant regard to the sustainability of the fragile deep-water ecosystem. The Scottish boats dedicated to deep-water fishing have had the rug pulled from under their feet again.
Mr Finnie is right to say that negotiations will be tough. I hope that he will not buckle under fire when the first shots are fired, as Franz Fischler appears to have done. Which team is Fischler playing for? We all remember the sudden sacking of Steffen Smidt, the director general of the fisheries directorate. Was that a result of Spanish pressure? It would appear so, because the Spanish saw Smidt as being against their interests.
The southern states have formed a group called friends of fishing—no friends of ours—that will aim to promote southern member state interests. The Scottish Executive must punch its weight and stand up against the forces that are lined up against it, because the Scottish fishing fleet is still the largest operator in EU waters. We lead the way in conservation, so why should we be the ones to suffer all the time?
The Commission figures for overall capacity reduction in the EU fleet appear deeply unfair to Scotland, the UK and the northern states. My colleague Ben Wallace will enlarge on that. It is important that Ross Finnie gives a guarantee that the reductions made by the Scottish fleet due to recent decommissioning will be taken into account with regard to reductions sought in the CFP review. Elliot Morley and Ross Finnie have both said that that will be the case and Ross Finnie has reaffirmed that today. However, there are rumours emanating that suggest that some in Europe take a contrary view.
I am glad about the plans that foreign vessels will now have to adhere to Scottish conservation measures within the 12-mile limit and I am pleased that future marine assessments will include not only fish stocks, but stocks of cetaceans, seabirds, sea corals and the well-being of the marine ecosystem. Europe is asking for scientific research on those new subjects, which raises the question of who will pay. Will it be new money or will it come from the fisheries budget? That question must be addressed and answered.
I want to see a Scottish fishing fleet live on with sustainable stocks that will ensure that Scottish fishing communities live on as well. However, the duplicitous horse-trading that we have seen recently endangers that picture and we must ensure that within the short time scale allowed, the points within the review that benefit Scottish fishing people are retained and not phased out by those with other agendas.
I move amendment S1M-3197.2, to leave out from "supports" to end and insert:
"but seeks assurances that Scotland's recent decommissioning programme will be taken into account with regard to reductions in fleet sizes; supports a collaborative and regional approach to reform involving the fishing industry and other stakeholders; acknowledges the need for a more sustainable balance between the catching capability of the fleet and available fish stocks; recognises that a process of tough negotiations with other member states now lies ahead, which was highlighted in yesterday's u-turn by the EU Fisheries Commissioner, Franz Fischler, over the issue of deep water species which has left our fleet with only 2% of that total allowable catch in their local waters, and further recognises that action of this kind will only serve to undermine confidence in the overall Common Fisheries Policy reform programme."
I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate a mere fortnight after the European Commission has published its proposals to reform the common fisheries policy.
I welcome the statement that Ross Finnie made at the end of his speech when he reaffirmed the Executive's commitment to aquaculture. As we all appreciate, fish farming is of fundamental importance to the social, economic and environmental well-being of communities from Shetland to Argyll. The importance of diversification in aquaculture is crucial. We cannot overstate the importance of cod, hake and halibut farming. I can confirm that halibut has been successfully produced, farmed and packaged in the Western Isles for sale in lucrative markets in the south-east of England.
Will Alasdair Morrison do something about the regulating systems faced by fish farms, which make the situation grossly unfair for fish farmers in this country?
I am in constant dialogue with my friends the ministers. I am sure that they are aware of the issues that Jamie McGrigor has raised.
We all appreciate that reform of fisheries policy is essential. The current arrangements are flawed and we must strike a balance between fish stocks and the catching capacity. We must reduce the amount of immature fish being caught. I fully support the measures that have been proposed to reduce catching capacity. It has often been said that we have too many boats chasing too few fish. Something must clearly be done. As Ross Finnie rightly said, Scotland has led the way in that regard, with some hundred boats being taken out of fishing.
We should not stop there. We should also look closely at the working practice of boats still left in the industry. Mesh size and the diameter of twine used in nets is an issue that must be addressed. Having fewer boats fishing is a legitimate aspiration in the context of conservation, but if those left fishing are using small-mesh nets with thick twine, they will continue to damage our stocks irreparably. Can we not learn from our Faroese and Icelandic colleagues? They are not reducing the number of boats fishing, but their fishermen use nets that are not all catch-all nets. The result is straightforward and simple. Their fishing continues to thrive and their industry is firmly rooted in the school of conservation and sustainability.
Most, if not all, members will appreciate that I represent a fishing community. The Western Isles fishermen have a proven track record of being conservation led. With the able assistance of my friend and colleague Calum MacDonald MP, they successfully piloted the lobster v-notching scheme, which is helping to conserve and enhance the status of lobster stocks. It is now up to the European Commission to look favourably at such communities.
Many villages in the Western Isles and in other parts of the Highlands and Islands are totally dependent on fishing and its related industries. The Commission must appreciate their needs and there must be assistance to allow people to buy the fishing entitlement in the waters adjacent to their communities. Europe has already recognised our special needs in the Highlands, when we were granted objective 1 status and, following that, transitional funding of £200 million.
I whole-heartedly agree with what Ross Finnie said about regional advisory councils. We must do everything to build trust between scientists, environmentalists, fishermen and other users of the marine environment. Let us harness the energies and expertise of all who have the long-term interests of fishing at heart. As has been said, the regional councils will be a useful mechanism in informing the Commission about the different priorities right across the European Union.
We cannot talk about sustainability and at the same time ignore the thorny issue of black fish. Illegal landings of black fish have contributed to the parlous state of our fishing stocks. Some of the skippers who clamoured for compensation from public funds to have their boats tied up at harbour have been involved, and may still be involved, in the landing of black fish. It is an issue that is all too often avoided. All that I would say to fishermen or skippers who have landed black fish over the years is, "Examine your conscience, because you must accept that you have contributed to the decline in Scottish fish stocks."
I wish Ross Finnie and Allan Wilson the very best in the important discussions over the next few months. I urge them to resolutely ignore the negativity and carping from the SNP and to get on with the real business. SNP members posture and try to portray themselves as the friends and allies of the fishing industry, but the friends of the fishing industry are found on the coalition benches. We appreciate that, over the next few years, the industry will face challenging times. That is why I hope that the Executive and colleagues in the UK Government do not opt for or support short-term, populist strategies. We must put the long-term interests of fishermen, processors and their communities before any perceived political gain. I wish the ministers the very best over the next year.
It is a pleasure to follow my fellow islander and colleague Alasdair Morrison. I agree with much of what he said, particularly in the latter portion of his speech. Reform of the common fisheries policy is vital. The current system is a failure and a discredited and outdated form of fisheries management, and it must go. Scotland's fishing industry must be supported and nurtured and we must achieve the best result that we can through the inevitable bun fight that approaches over the next few months in Brussels. As the minister outlined, key principles need to be enshrined in the proposals for a reformed CFP, not the least of which is the retention of the six and 12-mile limits and the issues of relative stability and access that relate to that.
It is a red herring—I noticed that Richard Lochhead was happy to go fishing for the red herring—that the Spanish will be prosecuting fisheries in the North sea after 1 January 2003. That is a bogus argument.
Just a minute.
The Scottish Fishermen's Federation and the other fishing organisations recognise that that is a bogus argument. The principal spokesman for the Opposition should recognise that as well.
I inform Tavish Scott that we were, of course, referring to the long term. I think that all of us in the chamber want Scotland's historic fishing rights to be maintained in the long term. Is Mr Scott aware that Spanish commentators have said that the CFP amounts to the scrapping of relative stability?
Mr Lochhead should be aware of what we expect from the Spanish. The southern states are bound to articulate their case. I would be disappointed if they did not as that is the process. I am pleased that Mr Lochhead is not negotiating on behalf of Scotland, given his apparent lack of knowledge of that important point. The reality is that we need to achieve relative stability now. The longer-term issues will be resolved if we get right the detail now. Mr Lochhead should be aware of that point.
The other important theme is the co-financing system of socioeconomic support to take the industry through the period of change. It is no surprise that the Spanish object to the Commission's proposals. Spain receives around 46 per cent of the current fisheries subsidy support that is available to all member states, whereas the UK as a whole receives less than 6 per cent. I suggest that the ministerial team consider forwarding a new financial package to somehow take into account and accompany the needs of the southern states when considering the balance between stock recovery, fleet restructuring and the socioeconomic conversion issues.
The introduction of regional advisory councils, as other colleagues have mentioned, is a considerable step forward. Ministers must work hard to ensure that those have an important role after the introduction of the new CFP.
I share some of Jamie McGrigor's concerns about the episode of the past couple of days. The minister was robust on that issue in public comment, following the fisheries council on Tuesday afternoon. I agree particularly with Mr McGrigor's point about the science. The Commission ignored the science on deep-water species. That is a worrying theme. Commissioner Fischler is keen to say that cod, hake or his species of the day is under such-and-such an attack, that the statistics are such-and-such and that we must instigate serious management measures. Mr Fischler must be called to account for his lack of consistency on science points. I hope that the ministerial team will pursue that in times to come.
I agree with Richard Lochhead's point about the proposed EU fisheries research institute. I share his aspiration to have that in Scotland. I argue that it should be at the North Atlantic Fisheries College in Shetland. Ministers will expect me to say that. The principle of science is important. I understand that the proposed institute will report not to the Commission, but to the Council of Ministers. That is an important difference and a stage further.
Three young men in Yell, in my constituency, have recently taken on an inshore fishing vessel that can be rigged for white fish. I want those young men to be part of a new and sustainable white fish fishing industry, in my constituency and in constituencies throughout Scotland, that has a future, in which men can return to sea and reinvest in their vessels. The pelagic fleet is reinvesting because of financial confidence, but we are not seeing that in the white fish industry.
I hope that, in driving forward a new CFP, ministers will be seized of the need to ensure that Scotland has a sustainable industry with a growing number of men re-employed in it, after the period of severe disadvantage that they have been through. We want Scotland to be able once again to cherish and nurture an extremely important industry that provides a stable food with health advantages for people the length and breadth of this country.
As has been said, the Scottish fleet has the largest capacity in the European pond. Therefore, it must be fought for and given protection in every way. In the decades in which I served on the European Parliament's Committee on Fisheries, I did not see that protection. I often found that my colleagues from the other three parties voted with Spain against the interests of our fleet. That is a matter of record. As all those members have lost their seats, perhaps there was some poetic justice, but that does not solve the problem of the sell-outs that happened time and again.
I have some doubts about the road map. That is a funny name. Will the minister say whether there is any news of a timetable in the document? We have heard from the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, which feels that southern countries might try to say that the road map is too northern based and might try to have it redrawn.
The issue has been raised that Mr Fischler is not to be trusted. According to Hamish Morrison of the SFF, Fischler said one thing one day and another thing the next. That shows that the Commission cannot be trusted, and not only on deep-sea fishing. That is a serious situation. How can we trust Mr Fischler? Who got at him? I do not know because I was not there, but I believe that he was got at. He changed his position completely from one day to the next. Will the minister trust Mr Fischler? Is the minister afraid that the road map will not stay in its present form and will be redrawn?
I want the minister—and perhaps the First Minister—to assure us that the road map will be examined critically. It seems to me to subvert the national historic rights and the fundamental principle of relative stability, the two vital words that were intended to protect the Scottish fleet.
I have what I hope will be a helpful intervention. Although the road map must be read and should not be ignored, I direct the member and other members to what is in the draft regulation—the document that will be voted on at the Council of Ministers—which enshrines relative stability.
Things have been enshrined before. I have seen dirty trick after dirty trick, notably when Commissioner Marin, a notable supporter of Spain, revised and extended the review mandate at the halfway point. That was illegal in all the texts of the legislation apart from the Spanish one, but it was done nevertheless. We did not trust the Commission then. Relative stability might be enshrined in the regulation, but it was enshrined before and then changed by that dirty trick.
In my long period of fighting I have sometimes felt alone and without the support of the great United Kingdom, which had clout but did not use it. It is not enough for something to be enshrined in legislation. The road map clearly lets Scotland down. Richard Lochhead also read out this quotation from the road map, but I ask the minister what it means. It mentions
"the introduction of more normal economic conditions and the elimination of such barriers to normal economic activity as … the principle of relative stability."
Will the minister explain that? By any logic, that statement gets rid of relative stability.
If it was sensible to have relative stability in 1983, how much more sensible and vital is it as the eastern countries come into the EU? What is the point of giving Italy and Greece more capacity when the CFP umbrella does not yet properly cover them? Our share of the seats and votes in Europe's institutions means that we suffer from a huge democratic deficiency in relation to the CFP.
I hope that the minister will fulfil the promise that Mr McLeish made on two occasions, that when the Scottish interest dominated on an issue—such as fishing—the Scottish minister would lead. I look forward to Mr Finnie leading. Given that we still allow a lot of industrial fishing, I cannot see where the UK's clout is, nor can I see it in the share of funding that we receive. We cannot complain that we receive only 6 per cent of the funding when Spain receives 46 per cent, when 6 per cent was all that we asked for. I think that that shows a lack of clout. Perhaps the minister could reassure me when he sums up, because I am full of the usual concern about these matters.
I welcome this debate, because even Franz Fischler has agreed that the CFP is long overdue for reform. We have to make our best efforts not only to retain what we can from the agreements but, as other members have clearly said today, to improve our position and put in place longer-term safeguards.
The proposed regional bodies are a rather pale reflection of the zonal management committees that were encouraged by the Conservatives and recently refined by the SFF and the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations. Although they are a first step and could eventually evolve into the real thing, we have learned enough about the CFP in the past to know that we need to grasp this matter. There is no point in saying that something may evolve if we do not, at the earliest possible stage, lay down in tablets of stone the changes that we think should be made. We should then fight robustly for those, but we must still take account of others' interests. We are not alone in this situation, and the future of the North sea fishery definitely lies in co-operation among the participating countries.
That said, everything must be based on science. Although there have been long arguments in Scotland between the fishermen and the scientists, we have to get the message through to Europe that they are now as one and, indeed, ensure that Mr Fischler himself gets a grasp of the science. We must also ensure that we do not use short-term science that is good only for a few years, but that we use the predictive science that we know is available and is excellently conducted in various parts of the UK, particularly in the marine laboratory in Aberdeen.
I make a plea to my parliamentary colleagues that we take some of the politics out of fishing debates and join forces where we can to present a united front. It is irrelevant who suggests good proposals, as long as we can agree them and can ensure that whoever goes to Europe to negotiate for our fleet has the active support of every member of the chamber. I see that Robin Harper is in the chamber. I know that he is a very keen supporter of sustainable fishing. Everyone recognises the social and economic importance of fishing, particularly to the north-east of Scotland.
I welcome the Scottish ministers' commitment to fight to retain the six and 12-mile limits and the Shetland box, and Ross Finnie's comments about relative stability. However, if the Spanish and Portuguese do not introduce any quotas, it will be madness if we do not have a scheme in hand to enforce the issue. That should be part of any discussions that we have with our colleagues, who should support our position if they also have to protect quotas and if they are keen about looking after the sustainability of fishing in the North sea.
I can only agree with the comments that many members have made this afternoon, particularly about the abomination of discards, which is simply an utter waste. We have to come up with policies to deal with that problem. However, no one has talked about the probability that days-at-sea regulations might be introduced. The prospect of such regulations means that we must once again actively discuss proposals for tie-up schemes if we need to consider that route. We cannot have the farce that we had in the past.
I totally support Winnie Ewing's comments about industrial fishing, which plays an active part in sustainability. However, whatever we do today in the chamber, we must agree practical solutions. We must ensure that our representatives who go to Europe will not be forced to compromise on what is already a compromise, given the proposals that the minister seems willing to accept on the new, very soft committees. We need full-strength zonal management.
The proposals for CFP reform have been widely welcomed by everyone involved in the fishing industry. One of the benefits of devolution is the fact that the Scottish fishing industry and the Scottish Parliament, through the European Committee and the Scottish Executive, have had significant input into forming the UK view on this matter.
Without doubt, proposals for reform offer the best opportunity in years to put in place a sustainable regime that supports fishing communities and places proper value on protecting the marine environment. Recognition of the value of ecosystem management for marine habitats with a strong focus on protecting marine biodiversity is a major step forward. I welcome the proposal to improve on the scientific information that is available and the proposed establishment of a European research institute. I agree with Tavish Scott that Scotland is an obvious home for that institute, but I disagree about where it should be. Much valuable work is already being carried out by the marine laboratory in Aberdeen, so Aberdeen might be a good location.
Now and over the next few months, it is essential that the views of Scotland and the UK, together with the views of other fishing nations that are in line with us, are heard loud and clear so that there is maximum impact and we ensure that the positive proposals in the road map are agreed.
In Scotland, the fishing industry amounts to just over 2 per cent of gross domestic product. A major part of that industry is the processing of fish and seafood. Fish processing sustains many jobs in Scotland. It is estimated that about 8,000 jobs are directly involved in it, 1,800 of which are in Aberdeen. All opportunities should be taken to add value to fish that are landed in Scotland for the benefit of local economies.
I am aware that the extreme shortage of skilled filleters means that Scottish fish are being exported to China for primary processing. In reforming the CFP, proper attention needs to be paid to supporting Scottish fish processors by encouraging people to consider entering the industry and by putting in place adequate support. Previously, there was PESCA funding to train skilled staff.
Much good work is being carried out to implement the recommendations of the Scottish White Fish Processing Action Group and Seafood Scotland is working with skippers to improve the quality of the fish that are landed. However, further restructuring is required and I ask the minister to consider further support to the processing sector to ensure that current activities can be successfully completed.
On fish landings, if there are not good negotiations and a good deal, there is a great risk that many fish will be caught and landed in Europe. For the north-east in particular, it is vital that we ensure that we have new facilities in Peterhead and other ports for the handling of fish and that those have landings coming in. One of the best ways of doing that is by securing good quotas for our people.
I am sure that the minister is well aware of the need to get the best possible deal in Europe in respect of the proposals for the reform of the CFP. It is also important that we work hard to improve the quality of fish that are landed, which has been a problem in Scotland.
It is clear that many of the CFP proposals, such as zonal management, the establishment of the regional advisory councils to allow more involvement of all stakeholders and the maintenance of a sustainable fishing industry in economic and environmental terms, are crucial to the Scottish fishing industry.
It is essential that the UK fisheries delegation has maximum impact. Scotland's best interests will be met by being part of that delegation. SNP arguments that Scotland would be better off with less influence and fewer votes are not in the best interests of Scotland's fishing industry.
I support the minister's strong statement on his negotiating position. It is good to hear him taking a robust position on how he will take on the negotiations that lie ahead.
I want to deal with the process that lies ahead. Some members seem to be unsure or unclear about how the process of negotiating reform of the CFP—or, indeed, the common agricultural policy—works. Richard Lochhead seems to be completely and fundamentally ignorant of the constitutional role of the EU Commission and Mr Fischler in the matter. The Commission's role is to put forward proposals for negotiation by member states. Once that negotiation has been completed around the table by the member states, the Council of Ministers will take decisions, based on a majority vote. In drawing up any proposal and even to make negotiations begin, account must be taken of the concerns of all the countries that are involved.
I reiterate that the SNP is concerned about the medium and long-term future. The Council of Ministers regulation that contains the CFP gives more delegated powers to the European Commission. The Scottish Fishermen's Federation expressed concern about that and the SNP is expressing concern about it. Will George Lyon also express concern about it?
I fully appreciate Richard Lochhead expressing concern about the matter, but that issue will be part of the negotiations. The Minister for Environment and Rural Development will negotiate on the issues if there are genuine concerns.
I am trying to point out that Richard Lochhead seems to fundamentally misunderstand the role of the Commission. He seems to think that because it has published a document that that will be the final settlement. I am sorry, but it does not work that way. Perhaps it is time that he went out to Europe to find out how the system works.
Jamie McGrigor fulminated about the horse-trading and negotiations that might lie ahead. That is how the process of negotiating an agreement between countries takes place. It is about negotiations, bilateral agreements and seeking a coalition of interests that will support a final document.
Will George Lyon tell me who Mr Fischler listened to when he made his decision on the deep-sea species?
That decision clearly signals that there will be negotiations and horse-trading ahead in the reform process. That is part and parcel of the game. It is up to us to ensure that we achieve a successful outcome. At least under the devolved settlement there will be a Scottish minister sitting at the table. Most important, a Scottish minister will be fundamental to the negotiations on what the UK position will be. He will sit at the table wielding 10 votes, unlike the situation if there was an independent Scotland when the votes of four countries would be needed to get to the position in which we had 10 votes to wield at the negotiating table.
Winnie Ewing is right to raise her concerns about the future negotiations and about how, in the past, UK ministers perhaps gave the impression that they had sold us out. One of the strengths of the devolved settlement is that the Scottish minister is engaged in drawing up the UK's negotiating position. Once that position has been negotiated at UK level, we sit at the table with 10 votes to wield when it comes to negotiating a successful outcome for Scotland. That bodes well for the future of the reform of the CFP. I hope that the minister is able to report back to the Parliament in the near future on a successful outcome that will give the Scottish fishing industry a sustainable future.
George Lyon certainly spoke to us in interesting terms. I note the effect of our contribution to the UK paper so far—it is nil.
Will the member take an intervention?
No.
Is George Lyon aware that a majority of the votes are held by countries that are outside the CFP? Is he also aware that qualified majority voting will apply only if the Commission recommends the proposals? After Tuesday, there is considerable doubt as to whether that will happen. That is the scale of the change of position by Franz Fischler. Far from the SNP and members of other parties in the chamber misunderstanding the situation as regards voting, the problem and the misunderstanding lie with the Executive.
Are SNP members seriously saying that they would rather go to the table not with the 10 votes that Ross Finnie can go to the table with, but in a situation in which they would start with minus four votes? They would have to persuade the rest of the United Kingdom to support the position before they even started, so they would start with minus four votes.
We are tight for time.
I have been very generous with Iain Smith. He will be aware that small countries that are led effectively can achieve results for their stakeholders. A Scottish delegation, led by an effective minister, would do exactly that.
I think that Alasdair Morrison sought irony in castigating SNP members for their attitude to the fishing industry. It must be an annual event in the Parliament that we debate fishing at 3.30 pm on the second Thursday in June. I made my maiden speech exactly one year ago, the day after I came into the Parliament and took my oath. It remains a vital issue for my constituents and I remain committed to supporting fishermen, as is every SNP member. Other members are equally committed to supporting fishermen and I am prepared to acknowledge that.
What research has been undertaken on quality? Elaine Thomson said that quality is a big issue. Fishermen in my constituency have asked me whether there are ways in which we can get money to fund research into fish quality. I ask the minister to consider whether Europe will allow him to do that.
We welcome the research on industrial fishing that is in the papers that we have before us. Industrial fishing is a matter of grave concern.
Will the member give way?
I do not have time.
We do not know the ecological effects of many industrial fishing practices. Perhaps a more serious gap in our research is that we do not know the ecological effects of the discards of deep-water fish in the north Atlantic.
It is interesting that some 20 per cent of the value of the landings of our fishing industry equates to the cost of administrating it. If we were to shift to a position whereby 20 per cent of that value was spent on research, we would be substantially better off.
The real issue, however, is whether we are going to have effective leadership for Scotland's fishermen in the forthcoming negotiations. Are we going to persuade Franz Fischler to recommend proposals, or is the Scottish minister going to lead our UK delegation in the negotiations? Only the latter will guarantee the position of our fishing industry.
I am looking forward to Ross Finnie leading that delegation with his 10 votes—which he will do.
Although I welcome the general thrust of the proposed CFP reforms, I stress the importance of the local management of fisheries to our achieving a sustainable future, not only for our fish stocks, but for our fishing communities. One of the failings of the present CFP is the fact that it attempts to manage fish stocks on a global basis and takes little account of the conservation requirements of individual fishing grounds. Regional advisory councils will not help if they merely replace centralised macromanagement of the North sea with regional macromanagement of the North sea.
I have mentioned before the lunacy of the situation whereby the fishermen of Pittenweem are subject to unviable prawn quotas, which exist not to protect prawn stocks, but to prevent the by-catch of white fish in fishing grounds where there are no white fish to catch. That does not make any sense. The fishermen of Pittenweem are getting very frustrated by the fact that, despite all their efforts to draw attention to their problems, nothing ever seems to change. If we are to sustain a viable fishing industry in areas such as the east neuk of Fife and fishing villages such as Pittenweem, we must allow local fishermen to manage their fishing grounds, backed up by much more detailed and localised scientific information.
It is a year to the day since the European Committee proposals were debated in the chamber and received unanimous support in the Parliament. It is important to record that. Too often, the Parliament is criticised. However, if the recommendations of the European Committee's report are compared with what the European Commission has said, it can be seen that a great deal of what we proposed has been accepted. That shows that the Parliament and the Executive are influencing the debate and the decisions that are made in Europe.
I know that I am short of time, but I want to mention regional advisory councils. In its report, the European Committee said that it believed in the principle of zonal management. However, we believed that that should happen after a transitional period, and that was agreed by all members of the Parliament. It is important that we recognise that regional advisory councils are a useful first step. On an incremental basis, they will begin to show us the way forward and I think that they will be a tremendous success. Following that success, the Commission will expand that role.
With the Executive, the European Committee has developed a pre and post-Council scrutiny process. I hope that the minister will give a commitment to work with the committee and the Parliament to ensure that we can be involved in the monitoring of and progress on that.
Will Irene Oldfather give way?
I have absolutely no time to give way. I am sorry.
We must ensure that there is an open and transparent mechanism for involving the Parliament. Like Alasdair Morrison, I wish the ministers well. We must use every channel of communication and every level of government that is open to us to argue the case for Scotland. I am confident that the ministers will do that.
I want to begin by addressing the points that were raised by the Conservatives and the nationalists. In his speech, Jamie McGrigor made some reference to football and so on, but he also talked about horse-trading. As George Lyon has pointed out, although the term is slightly pejorative, horse-trading is precisely what our ministers have to do when they go to the EC. There is a straightforward negotiation and sometimes they have to throw a few punches into the bargain.
I find myself intrigued by what has been said by members of the SNP. Richard Lochhead seemed to welcome just about everything that the minister is doing and I am gratified by that. He welcomed in particular the reduction in fleet capacity and so on.
Winnie Ewing talked about relative stability. That is an interesting phrase because it highlights the difficulty that the SNP has with regard to whether it is in favour of working in the EU or against it. Sometimes, the SNP is in danger of being backed into the blind alley of little Scotlandism. It would be interesting if that issue could be clarified when the SNP sums up.
The contributions from across the chamber have been worth while and interesting. This has been a constructive debate and one in which—if we want to read the subplot as we coast towards the summer recess—everyone expressed support for the ministers in their endeavours in Europe.
Alasdair Morrison, in customary style, introduced the notion of growing halibut and so on and well done him for flagging that up.
Tavish Scott talked about the importance of science and I would like to echo that. Scientific advice is absolutely paramount and I wonder whether people in the European Commission take that on board. It is vital that we get that aspect right because, if we do not, we will be working against everything that is right and proper to sustain the fishing industry.
I cannot remember who mentioned the need for the European Commission to recognise the importance of communities. That must be echoed as well. Not only do ministers have to punch above their weight in Europe; they must work with the enterprise network to back up the communities that suffer. The reduction in the fishing fleet has had an impact in Wick, for instance, which is in my constituency, and there is a role for ministers to get involved in that in conjunction with the enterprise network.
I thank the SFF, which has consistently kept me in the picture and has supplied me with useful information. I note that Hamish Morrison is sitting in the gallery today.
The fact is that, if members go down to the harbour and talk to people who are involved in the industry, they will see that they appreciate the work that is put in by our ministers. That attitude is interesting, given what has been said about ministers in the past. Ross Finnie punches above his weight and works extremely hard on our behalf. He takes a robust attitude to the negotiations and that is to be applauded.
I wish ministers the best of luck in the forthcoming negotiations. I urge them to fight hard for us, which I am sure that they will do. They should remember that they have the whole of the chamber behind them.
The context for this debate is that most people in the chamber agree with the measures that Franz Fischler and the European Commission introduced. Members of the European Committee, after hours of deliberation, produced a report that we are delighted to see is pretty much mirrored in the Commission's proposals. We do not regret or disagree with most of those proposals.
We have every faith that the Scottish fleet has always played by the rules and has done its best to meet whatever demands have emerged from Brussels, although they have sometimes been destructive. It is a tribute to the Scottish fleet that, despite measures that have often threatened to destroy the industry completely, the fleet has got on with doing its job while the fleets of other countries have tried to pull the wool over the Commission's eyes.
The Scottish Executive faces a challenge to prove its ability to fight Scotland's corner. The unionist members in this chamber have accepted and believe in the system that allows Scotland a powerful voice through UK membership of the Council of Ministers. The time to prove that we are right is now. I believe in that. The onus is on the minister to fulfil my expectations, to fulfil everything on which we stand up and fight the SNP, and to say that our vote can make a difference. He will be judged on that. He will need to draw a line in the sand for Scotland and not accept the fudged compromises that might benefit Mr Blair's ambitions for Europe—who am I to speculate?—but not those of our fishermen.
Tuesday was just such a time. When the Council of Ministers met to discuss the draft outline of the CFP reforms—there was an element of clarification in that meeting—it was important that Scotland's views on deep-water fish be put across and win through. Unfortunately, the commissioner's assurances, which we heard on Monday, suddenly evaporated and we lost out. That is one of the examples of how unsuccessful qualified majority voting can be.
Stewart Stevenson is absolutely right: the key element is which proposals the Commission sides with. If the Commission sides with the proposals that are agreeable to the southern states or the friends of fishing—who have the majority of the votes in the European Union—qualified majority voting comes into play. The key element is not whether the United Kingdom has 100 votes, but where the Commission sits.
We know the friends of fishing. Fishing seems to be split into two sides. We have the friends of fishing on one hand and Scotland and a few of the North sea states that have a different view on the other. There are not many of us, I am afraid. It is one view or the other. If the Commission agrees to back Spain and the friends of fishing, we will be in trouble. The minister has to draw that line in the sand. He will be judged on his effectiveness in achieving that.
I know that the minister said that it is not about who spoke to whom, but that is important to clarify. The minister said earlier that we should look at the regulation, not at the proposal. However, article 11 of the proposed Council regulation on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the common fisheries policy says that the baseline for a fleet's reduction will be based at the end of the extended period of multi-annual guidance programme IV. Nowhere in the proposed regulation does it say that our efforts at fleet reduction will be taken into account.
If our efforts should be taken into account, we have to accept that Spain's efforts or Portugal's efforts should also be taken into account. We cannot say that the UK's efforts must be recognised but that Spain's must not, because under qualified majority voting, one size must fit all. If Spain's efforts are taken into account, it will be allowed to increase the capacity of its fleet.
Will Mr Wallace clarify what steps Spain and Portugal have taken on decommissioning?
I have been reliably informed and Spain's submission to the Commission has said that the Spanish have reduced their fishing effort by 40 per cent under MAGP IV. Given that I think that they are going to be required to reduce by 27 per cent, that means that they are plus 13 per cent. So they will be allowed to increase the fleet. So they have.
We are not the only country that is going round saying that it has reduced its effort. The Netherlands has not—it has just gone up to its maximum, which will be fine for it. Spain, however, claims the same as we do—I do not know how truthful it is being—so we must recognise that. The minister may say, "We lost it in negotiation; that is horse-trading," but his effectiveness will be judged on that.
Let us consider what happens next. At the Council of Ministers meeting on Tuesday, the Commission made it clear that the scrapping of vessels is not compulsory. How a member state chooses to reduce its fishing capacity will be a political decision. That decision could be tie-up, days at sea or scrapping—the method will not be obligatory. We all remember what happened the last time that we had to make a political decision on tie-up versus scrapping.
In the end, whatever is agreed will be judged. The Executive will have the political choice. If the Conservatives disagree with it, we will hold it to account. The Conservatives welcome the proposals for zonal management, conservation, 12-mile limits and six-mile limits. They are all in line with the European Committee's proposals and they are all things that we can back. We will judge the Executive on its ability to negotiate and hold its own in the Council of Ministers. That is what our fishermen expect.
The presence of Hamish Morrison in the gallery reminds us of the need to unite in the debate and to speak out in the interests of all fishermen and of those in Scotland who rely on fishing for their jobs. That point was made by David Davidson and echoed by many speakers during the debate. The chamber has united during the crunch times of the annual negotiations and has supported the minister in his attempts to secure the best deal for Scotland that he can. It is important that I make that statement at the beginning of my speech.
I underline the SNP's agreement with many aspects of the package. It is essential that conservation and sustainability are central to the policy. Multispecies and multi-annual management is a welcome development. We certainly support the attempts to create a level playing field and we also support effort limitation, which both Jamie McGrigor and, I think, Alasdair Morrison spoke about.
Fleet capacity needs to be reduced on a European level, but there was a hint early on in the debate that a question mark hangs over the lack of clarity in the proposals. We have already gone through a process of pain, as Richard Lochhead pointed out. If we have to undergo a further decommissioning programme, will that threaten the viability of some of our small fishing ports? That issue has been raised in the fishing press recently—[Interruption.] Alasdair Morrison seems to find something humorous about that; I do not. We are worried that the proposals do not make it clear that decommissioning should take place in other countries where there has been no decommissioning, before further decommissioning takes place in Scotland.
I welcome Alasdair Morrison's comments about the importance of aquaculture. Anyone who represents a constituency in which salmon farming is important is bound to support those comments. I hope that his point about over-regulation will be addressed, although today may not offer an appropriate opportunity to do so.
There is little time available to me in the debate to develop those points, so I will focus on a serious concern that has emerged from the debate. I do not make this point, which arose during the minister's speech, in a party-political way. He said that he was satisfied that relative stability—the key element in protecting our fishing rights—was enshrined in the proposed regulation. I do not claim to have made an exhaustive, week-long analysis of the CFP reform package documents and, in a way, I hope to be shot down and proven wrong at the end of the debate. However, article 3, which is the definition section of the proposed regulation, contains no definition of relative stability. Therefore, no definition of relative stability is enshrined in the regulations. However, a far more serious point—this is my main point—is that, as far as I can see, the reference to relative stability appears only in this context in article 20, which says:
"The Council shall decide on a method of allocation for the distribution among Member States of the Community fishing opportunities for each stock that ensures each Member State a share of those fishing opportunities and/or of the fishing effort to be distributed, having regard to the need to assure each Member State as to relative stability of fishing activities."
The reference to, and inclusion of, the phrase "relative stability" is welcome, but it is beyond doubt that, by definition, a body that has to have regard to something can also disregard it—perhaps not now, but at a future date. In contrast to what the minister suggested, article 20 certainly does not say that the Council must allocate in accordance with relative stability—it says only that the Council must have regard to relative stability. That might not be of concern, were it not for the curious road map document—I cannot think of a more inappropriate term to use to describe the common fisheries policy—which says:
"If the Community takes action to address these issues, on the basis of the proposals now put forward, it will gradually create a climate that will be more favourable to the introduction of more normal economic conditions and the elimination of such barriers to normal economic activity as national allocations of fishing possibilities and the principle of relative stability."
Even the road map anticipates that relative stability will cease at some unspecified point in the future, although we do not know whether that will happen in the short, medium or long term.
I accept that the period is unspecified, but I presume that the whole point is that ministers will go over to negotiate a principle for the future common fisheries policy, which will be enshrined from 1 January next year. If that is achieved, Mr Ewing's points do not arise.
The minister must do his best and we support him in those efforts. My point is that the proposed regulation does not enshrine the principle of relative stability. That is absolutely clear and I hope that it will be accepted in the response. If the principle is enshrined, it is enshrined in the same way that clause 4 was enshrined in the constitution of the Labour party.
Hugh Allen of the Mallaig and North West Fishermen's Association recently raised a serious point, which relates to the perilous nature of fishing. Fishing is not a normal economic activity, as Commission officials state. Fishermen put at risk their lives. Hugh Allen said that there is a serious risk to the life of fishermen because of insufficient crew in some boats that go to sea. That is a factor of the economic reality and the difficulties that they suffer and it underlines the urgent need for unity behind the minister in his efforts to get the best possible deal for Scotland and its fishing communities.
I welcome what has been largely a productive debate. I also welcome the delegates from Saltcoats Labour club, who have travelled across the country to be here for the debate. They are men who know the value of a good fish supper and who understand that, as Ross Finnie made clear, the central importance of the debate is long-term sustainability. That must be our undying goal. I agree with Ben Wallace, Fergus Ewing and others in hoping that that view will be shared across the Parliament.
The basic fact is that the Commission's proposals are exactly that—they are proposals. They are the beginning of the journey and not the end. We must secure a quality debate and the debate here and in Brussels must be serious and informed if we are to achieve our aims for the review. Nothing has been decided or agreed and a great deal of work remains to be done. I do not need to remind members that there are member states with opposing interests. Jamie McGrigor, George Lyon and Tavish Scott have explained that such different interests exist. Those different interests can be tackled in negotiation.
I firmly believe that we have made a good start. The proposals reflect a lot of our thinking and they take account of Scottish priorities. They are not perfect, but they are a lot better than they might have been. Some members—Richard Lochhead in particular—were obsessing about the distinction between the draft regulations and the road map. I submit that the broad thrust of the regulations is positive and there is still the opportunity to fight hard for our interests. The real reforms are to be found in the draft regulations, which remain a helpful starting point.
The minister rightly points out that the battles lie ahead. The fear in the industry, especially in light of the Commission's stance earlier this week on the deep-water fishery, is that the regulations will be watered down as the European Union's southern states in particular start to shout loudly. Will the minister outline what steps the ministerial team has taken to build alliances with other member states, so that the regulations will not be watered down and, indeed, will be strengthened, particularly with reference to historic fishing rights?
I have raised the United Kingdom flag in international negotiations at the North sea conference in Bergen. The process is complex. I had the privilege of leading the UK delegation on the preservation of blue whiting stocks. There is no doubt that alliances have to be built. I appreciate that the member does not have such experience and will probably never get it. The process is difficult.
As I have said, our priorities are to achieve the best possible deal for Scottish fishermen and to ensure sustainable fisheries in a healthy marine environment. When decisions are being made, a difficult balance must often be struck between short-term difficulties and long-term gains. On the one hand, we have a vision for the right CFP; on the other hand, we have fishermen who are often struggling to make ends meet and who have the understandable priority of landing enough fish to help to pay off debts at the end of the month.
Our job is jointly to find the right balance so that the industry can get to the future without destroying the present, but that will involve making some hard decisions. We must ensure that fleet capacity is more in harmony with available stocks. The Executive has already taken steps to mitigate the imbalance through our decommissioning scheme, but we will need to examine carefully whether further cuts in the fleet are needed. We shall, however, impress on our neighbours that any cuts must apply fairly across the Community.
I know that the minister sets store by the Council's regulations, but where do the regulations say that they will take into account the member state's effort reduction?
Much though he might wish me to do so, I will not start the negotiations in public with Ben Wallace. The road map discusses long-term views. The draft regulations, which will be voted on after negotiation, make it clear that relative stability will stay. We will support only those cuts that are based on evidence, not those that are made using back-of-the-envelope calculations, as some of our political opponents would have us do. As Ben Wallace will surely agree, we must also end the subsidies for new build and so ensure a more level playing field across the Community.
Winnie Ewing asked about the timetable. Although the end-year target is clearly ambitious, the Commission is confident that there will be no legal vacuum at the end of the year. If necessary, the Council could agree interim measures to prolong the six and 12-mile derogation.
I want now to deal with governance, which Ross Finnie did not have the chance to speak about in any depth. In Scotland, we have worked to bring decision making closer to those who must live with the consequences of our decisions. Like all members present, I strongly support the proposal for the establishment of regional advisory councils, which will advise Governments and the Commission. The industry is keen to make the regional advisory councils effective. I welcome the industry's positive approach. The advisory councils will be as effective as our membership can make them.
I also welcome one special proposal. The Commission has proposed that each member state should be able to regulate any EU fishing vessel in that member state's six and 12-mile limits. At present, member states can regulate only their own vessels. The proposal is significant because it illustrates a commitment not only to a more regional approach but to the existing access and resource management framework.
I have insufficient time to deal with the many other issues, such as the science, the ecosystem approach, the code of conduct, the control and inspection regime and aquaculture. Enormous challenges face the catching sector, but we should not forget the contribution that aquaculture can make.
I welcome the views that have been expressed today, some of which were more predictable than others, but all of which are welcome. I do not pretend that there are instant answers to every point. Some issues will require a lot of detailed consideration and further debate and consultation. From our perspective, today's input has been helpful.
We cannot, and should not, hide from the fact that life for the fishing industry will get harder before it gets easier. As Richard Lochhead said, there will be pain, but it will be for a purpose. That purpose is the long-term sustainability and viability of our fishing industry. Sustainability is essential to support fragile rural communities that depend heavily on the industry.
However, the contribution that aquaculture can make to thriving rural communities should not be forgotten, as Alasdair Morrison mentioned. The aquaculture sector is developing so that it can deal with species such as cod and halibut, which were traditionally caught on the high seas. The CFP review should be viewed not as a threat but as a welcome opportunity to integrate aquaculture more closely into our strategic thinking on fisheries and on the support of rural communities.
In summary, as someone who has raised the flag for the UK in negotiations, I believe that our aim is to deliver a new CFP that will take account of Scottish needs. We want a new CFP that results in a sustainable and competitive industry that more closely involves stakeholders in the management decisions that affect them. We want a policy that is consistent with a sound marine environment and which is based on sound scientific advice. In short, we need to get the CFP right.
If we fail, future generations will judge us harshly. I assume that no one here today will argue that we can carry on as we are. We must try to ensure that the final CFP reform package provides for a healthy future for our fish stocks, for our marine environment and for our fishing industry, which so heavily depends on them. I therefore commend the Executive's motion to the Parliament, and ask the Parliament to reject the Conservative and nationalist amendments.