Fisheries
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-5303, in the name of Ross Finnie, on fisheries.
Those with a keen interest in fisheries will have welcomed the warm-up before this important debate.
The European Union fisheries council will meet on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday next week to take its annual decisions on fishing opportunities for the year ahead. As always, it will be an important occasion for Scotland's fishing sector, so I welcome the opportunity to set out the prospects for the negotiations and to seek the Parliament's support for what I aim to achieve. The negotiations take place against the background of the scientific advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, the results of the EU-Norway negotiations, the coastal state negotiations and the European Commission's proposals.
I will start with a brief summary of the science and the decisions that have already been taken. The key, as always for Scotland, is cod. Although the advice on North sea cod is more positive than before, ICES continues to advise that cod stocks are outside their safe biological limits and recommends zero catches. That advice will, once again, dominate the proceedings for Scotland, given the mixed nature of our white-fish fishery.
There is more encouraging news on other stocks. The advice on monkfish supports the approach that we have advocated for some time of a higher total allowable catch. It also supports the extended scientific programme and the constant effort that we have made. The advice on Rockall haddock points to a significant increase in the stock.
On nephrops, there has been some scientific to-ing and fro-ing. In 2005, we negotiated significant increases on the basis of the new advice from the Commission's scientific, technical and economic committee for fisheries. This year, ICES has suggested another methodology, which would have resulted in a sharp cut in the TAC, particularly in the North sea. However, the Commission's advisers have rejected that methodology and have stuck to their 2005 methodology. If accepted, that latest advice would mean a minor cut in the North sea TAC but an increase in the west coast TAC.
The minister will be aware that the prospect of a cut in days at sea and in the quota for the prawn sector is causing enormous concern around Scotland's coasts. Has he had any feedback from the European Commission on its approach to its own scientific advice, which is in Scotland's favour?
Richard Lochhead says that the scientific advice is in Scotland's favour. I repeat that the scientific advice on cod is quite clear. It states—
I asked about prawns.
I am sorry. We understand that, subsequent to the ICES advice on prawns, the STECF has reiterated its position. We believe that that is the position that will be arrived at. It is certainly the position that we are adopting. The Commission has not made a specific statement, as you know, although it was still calling for a cut. However, the STECF has explicitly reiterated its advice.
The decisions taken in the external negotiations have been mixed. The cut of 14 per cent in the North sea cod quota was too high and could lead to an increase in unwanted discards, particularly in non-targeted fisheries. That issue continues to give us considerable concern.
I hear what the minister says about his concern about the outcome of the EU-Norway talks and the 14 per cent cut in the cod quota. Is he aware of any member state that was in favour of that cut? If no member state was in favour, how come officials can agree it when the member states do not? Is there any chance that he can say to the Commission, "You may have agreed it, but we are not agreeing it"?
No member state supported the original proposal for a 25 per cent cut, but I regret to say that, as the negotiations proceeded on a downward track to a 15 per cent cut and finally arrived at a 14 per cent cut, other member states indicated that they were prepared to accept the revised proposal. That is why, after a long process, the negotiations came to an end without our being able to convince other member states that the 14 per cent cut remained too high.
Other decisions, however, were of real importance to us, such as the agreement in the coastal states negotiations of a 13 per cent increase in the mackerel quota, although a modest reduction had appeared to be on the cards. In the EU-Norway negotiations, we achieved a 6.4 per cent increase in the haddock quota, which was entirely consistent with the revisals to the management plan—which included a clause to ensure future stability for catchers and processors—and with the mortality rate in the plan, which had been reviewed and revised. We resisted the cuts proposed for whiting and secured a quota level for North sea herring that the Executive and the industry agreed was right to safeguard the future of that fishery.
In a number of important ways, this year has been different from past years. First, Scotland has achieved unprecedented consensus on what needs to be done to produce an industry for the longer term and to concentrate on the value that we can obtain from each fish that we land. That is not just the work of the Executive; it is far more the work of a wide group of stakeholders, including processors and fishers. It is an approach that has been welcomed by the Commission and could be particularly helpful for arguing the environmental case contained in the sea-FAR strategy.
It is important that we regenerate fishing communities as well as fish stocks. How will the European fisheries fund that comes to the United Kingdom be split? Can we rightfully expect two thirds of that fund to come to Scotland?
The allocation of the new European fisheries fund has not been determined and will not be discussed at the December council. I accept Mark Ruskell's point that there are other issues; nevertheless, the value that we obtain for the fish is extremely important for the economy of the local communities.
The second major change is that we have by and large overcome the black-fish problem. We have presented to the Commission clear evidence of a step change in behaviour. In our opinion, illegal Scottish landings are at a negligible level. Again, that is significant in our negotiations, not just in Europe but with third parties and other coastal states. Thirdly, we have put increased resources into focusing on the external negotiations, because 57 per cent of the fish that is landed in Scotland is now part of international—not just European Union—negotiations. Of course, come the December talks, we still have a large amount of work to do. As I have said in recent years, as long as cod remains outside its safe biological limit, the Scottish white-fish fleet, with the mixed nature of its fishery, will suffer problems trying to reconcile the scientific evidence and the imperative for a sustainable fishery for the catchers and for the communities they serve. The restrictions that flow from the application of the cod recovery plan inevitably impact on parts of those fleets, even those that do not target cod. Indeed, we have no particular fishery that targets cod.
Will the minister tell us what percentage of the white-fish catch over the past year has been cod?
In terms of value, it remains a substantial figure. I do not have the percentage at my fingertips, but if I find it I will perhaps deal with it when I wind up.
In the proposals that were put on the table last Monday we appear to have drifted to a position beyond what is said by scientists. We do not appear to be accepting the compelling scientific advice, particularly on nephrops. As I said to Richard Lochhead, we believe that there is movement on the nephrops fishery, but I will be pressing hard to get an early conclusion on the STECF advice, which was the basis on which we settled last year.
I am not prepared to accept the proposal for a 25 per cent cut in days at sea. That is not just about rejecting the science out of hand. That figure is a global figure applied to the whole of the North sea. The figures on the reduction in the level of effort, particularly in the Scottish sector and in the 100mm mesh fishery, have been coming down. However, the Commission is to some extent correct that there are other fisheries where the level of effort has not been reduced, such as the 70mm to 99mm mesh. There are issues there that will have to be addressed. I will come back to that.
Does the minister accept that the proposed measures would have an impact on not just the catching sector but the onshore sector? Fish processors will also be hit hard if there is a cutback in the number of days at sea for vessels.
Minister, you have about one minute in which to wind up.
It would be absolutely amazing if a catch quota did not affect processors, so I accept that point totally.
I will argue for substantial increases in the Rockall haddock quota, as suggested by the science, and I will press for stability. We will do what we can to ensure that we secure the recovery of cod. We have already made significant efforts on that. I also believe that the measures need to be rebalanced—as I tried to point out before Richard Lochhead's intervention—away from the white-fish fleet towards other, smaller-mesh fisheries. Only in that way can we ensure that all fleets make the sort of contribution to cod recovery that the Scottish white-fish fleet has made in recent years.
In conclusion, I repeat that the state of the cod stocks and the proposals on the table make it difficult, but we have a strong case on which we have worked extremely hard at a technical level. We have tried hard to ensure that all our points are on the table for both the Commission and its technical people. We have also worked hard to ensure that we secure support, as we have done, for many of our positions from both the industry and environmental groups. The Parliament's support for the approach that we have taken throughout the autumn and into next week would make our case all the more compelling.
I move,
That the Parliament supports the Scottish Executive in its efforts to negotiate the best possible outcome from the EU Fisheries Council in December 2006, an outcome that delivers sustainable fisheries and a fair deal for Scotland's fishermen and fishing communities.
On behalf of the Scottish National Party, I welcome today's debate and I use this opportunity to pay tribute to the men in our fishing industry. In particular, I pay tribute to the men at sea who—as many of our communities have found out to their cost in the past year or so—have often had to pay the ultimate sacrifice to bring fish to our tables.
We welcome the debate as we prepare for the Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition's eighth December fisheries council in Brussels. The outcome of those negotiations will impact on one of Scotland's most vital sectors. Even after the difficult times of recent years, fish landings alone in Scotland are valued at more than £0.33 billion. That does not take into account the value that is added to Scottish seafood by the processing sector.
Although the industry has benefited from fair fish prices this year, it is a pity that the catching sector's turnover has been undermined by the expenses of fuel costs and of acquiring quota. Given that quota must often be leased, not just from other fishermen but from companies, I hope that when the minister winds up the debate he will address the question of why our catching sector is still required to lease such fishing rights from private companies. That is not right. Those profits could have regenerated the existing fishing fleet, which is aging.
Despite past assurances that the fishing industry would be allowed to sail into calmer waters after the enormous sacrifices of previous years, our fishing communities once again face an anxious 10 days as they await the outcome of negotiations, given the backdrop that the European Commission has painted in recent months. The catching sector needs an assurance that it will be given not only quota, but enough time at sea to catch that quota. Our processing sector needs an assurance that it will be able to benefit from continuity of supply and that no more jobs will be lost in our vital onshore sector. We cannot afford to lose any more vital skills from our fish processing sector. The fishing industry's difficulties of recent years have hit the onshore sector hard. That is why I raised that issue in my intervention.
Our fishing industry has been promised time and again that it would receive due reward for the sacrifices that it has made. It was told that it would be rewarded with stability and certainty. However, yet again as this year's negotiations approach, our fishing communities face uncertainty and instability.
Will the member give way?
I will take an intervention from the minister.
Let us just take a step back. Is the member completely ignoring the scientific advice on the state of the stocks? Had we not taken the steps that we did, our fishing industry would, regrettably, be in a very much worse position. The Scottish fishing industry deserves credit for the steps that it has taken. However, the reward to which the member referred will be when we have the stocks balanced with the opportunities.
I was about to come to those very points. When the European Commission proposed in July a 25 per cent across-the-board cut for quota and effort, there was an outcry from not only the fishing communities, but the minister himself, so I am surprised by his intervention.
Then we had the November talks with the Norwegians about joint stocks and the 14 per cent cut in the cod quota. Even the minister described that decision as "particularly disappointing", which he reiterated in his opening speech. The SNP's point is vindicated by the minister's words in previous weeks. Last week, the first proposal for next week's talks was made by the European Commission. Once again, it has reiterated its proposals for draconian cuts that will hit Scotland's fishing communities extremely hard and, as I mentioned in my intervention on the minister, the prawn fleet in particular, which is threatened with a 25 per cent cut in effort. That would devastate the prawn fleet at a time when Scottish prawn stocks are at a healthy level. It would be ludicrous if that fishery's effort was cut back further. We welcome the minister's support to try to ensure that that does not happen. The minister described those latest EC proposals as "controversial, provocative and confrontational."
The industry and ministers are once again on the back foot. Ten days before the talks, the industry is fighting for survival. We should be debating in this chamber, as well as with the European Union, the long-term management of Scotland's fishing resources. However, because of the way in which decision making happens in Brussels, we are talking instead about several sections of the industry fighting for their survival. That has implications for public perception.
Despite the talk of cuts that emanates constantly from the European Commission, Scotland's key stocks are in a healthy position. Haddock stocks are at record levels and prawn stocks are in a healthy position, as are many of our pelagic stocks, as the minister commented. Yet, because of the cod recovery plan that the Commission has described as failing, the cod problem will dominate the talks in 10 days' time, which will have implications for the fleets that catch cod as a bycatch.
Surely, surely, surely Richard Lochhead cannot go on talking about the fact that haddock and nephrops are healthy and not recognise that cod can be caught in both those fisheries. It is logical that if we are concerned about cod, we have a problem in both the haddock and the nephrops fisheries.
Again, I return to the minister's own comments in which he described the Commission's proposals as "provocative and confrontational" and "particularly disappointing".
We have a mixed fishery and, time and again, the European Commission shows willingness to sacrifice the other fleets in Scottish waters in a vain attempt to save the cod when it has admitted that the cod recovery plan needs to be reviewed. That will happen next year. Why on earth then are we talking about more draconian cuts hitting Scotland's fishing sector 10 days before the negotiations when the review of the cod recovery plan will happen in a few months? The Commission refuses to swallow its pride. In evidence to the Environment and Rural Development Committee last week, the minister made that very point. He said in his submission:
"the Commission has staked its credibility as a fisheries manager on the recovery of cod."
It seems that the European Commission is willing to adopt a scorched earth policy to prevent itself from having to swallow its pride over its failed cod recovery plan. We cannot afford to sacrifice all the other sectors of the industry on the altar of the cod recovery plan, which has failed. Climate change and other factors influence the location of cod stocks. We saw the report of two weeks ago in which it was verified that climate change is impacting on the location of cod stocks.
I will conclude with two further points. If we manage Scotland's waters properly, we can have a prosperous future and our fishing communities can go from strength to strength. That means changing the existing system of fisheries management in Scottish waters. Scotland accounts for 25 per cent of European Union waters, yet of all the countries round the table deciding the future of Scotland's fishing communities, we have the least say. That has to change so that we can make fishing a priority in Scotland and give the industry a prosperous future.
I move amendment S2M-5303.2, to insert at end:
"calls for a deal that provides Scotland's fishing communities with a sustainable share of fishing opportunities and adequate time at sea to allow the industry's quota to be caught and demands that any deal to the contrary is rejected; notes with regret that the failed Common Fisheries Policy continues to deliver remote, inflexible and draconian fisheries management that results in ongoing instability and uncertainty for our catching and fish processing sectors, and believes that, since over two-thirds of UK fish landings are in Scotland, Scotland's fisheries minister should be designated as the official lead minister for the United Kingdom in EU negotiations."
The Conservatives welcome today's debate. I understand that congratulations are in order, or perhaps the word should be "commiserations", because Ross Finnie is now the longest-serving fisheries minister in the EU. I commend the minister on his stamina and his infinite patience. I wish that I could commend him on his success rate but, as he knows better than most, negotiations with European fisheries ministers tend to be one-way traffic.
In the seven years for which Ross Finnie has been at the helm, nearly 1,100 Scottish fishing boats have been deregistered, including those that were decommissioned—that is three boats for every week that he has been in charge. Some 3,000 fishermen have been forced to leave the sea and around 1,000 fish-processing jobs have disappeared. Last Wednesday, Aberdeen—which is the United Kingdom's main processing centre—saw only half a box of fish landed at the home port.
Reduced quotas have meant only 12 days a month at sea for most boats. The dedicated white-fish fleet has been reduced by two thirds. Whereas other EU countries such as Spain and Ireland, and non-EU countries such as Iceland and the Faroes, have seen their fleets grow and prosper, the UK industry has continued to decline, especially in the white-fish sector.
Will the member give way?
Will the member take an intervention?
Yes, Mr Finnie.
Will the member tell us which of the fleets that he mentioned actually have cod in the middle of their fishery? Will he tell us about mixed fisheries? This is not about singling out Scotland. We have responded to the scientific situation on cod—that is the issue. If Mr Brocklebank is telling the chamber that the Conservative party would ignore the science, he should be good and honest enough to tell us now.
The minister asks which other countries have mixed fisheries. The answer is easy: Iceland, the Faroes and Norway all have mixed fisheries and all handle their fisheries management infinitely more successfully than we do in the European Union.
It would be churlish to deny that during 2006 some Scots fishermen have prospered. The increase in nephrops quotas secured at last year's summit has brought some stability. Given that catching effort has been cut by two thirds, and given the abundance of haddock, the hugely truncated white-fish fleet has had a reasonable year. Fishermen report plenty of fish at sea. But, as ever, the European Commission cannot leave well alone. In pursuit of the cod recovery plan—a strategy that has led to virtually no recovery in cod biomass since its introduction six years ago—the warning shots have already been fired from Brussels, as we have heard. In prospect are still further swingeing cuts in cod quotas; a possible 25 per cent cut in days at sea; and, since cod can be taken as bycatch, nephrop quotas are also under siege. A year after they were increased by 32 per cent, this December could see prawn quotas slashed by up to half that. Like the grand old Duke of York, we have marched our prawn fishermen up to the top of the hill, and now the EU ministers would like to march them straight back down again.
How can hard-pressed fishermen and processors plan for the future against that kind of rollercoaster background? It is hardly surprising that the minister himself has labelled the Commission's opening shots as "provocative and confrontational." He believed that there was a new and constructive approach among ministers to securing agreement, so it is little wonder that he described the Commission's opening stance as "profoundly disappointing." Profoundly disappointing yes, but surprising, no.
After all the years during which the minister has trekked to Brussels, the only surprise—if we consider the EU's law of diminishing returns—is that the minister is still surprised. Still, around 21 December, I have no doubt that Ross Finnie will emerge waving a bit of paper to tell us what a victory he has achieved against overwhelming odds. As we have seen before in such negotiations, the victories are about how little he has had to concede rather than about how much he has achieved.
We on this side of the chamber wish the minister every success in his efforts. Fishermen all over Scotland—not least the prawn fishermen in Pittenweem in my part of the country—will be on tenterhooks until they know what kind of future they can look forward to next year.
I do not subscribe to the view attributed to Richard Lochhead that the minister lacks backbone; what he lacks is a negotiating position. I have been attacked over the years for stating that, without a backstop negotiating stance, the minister has an impossible task at December summits. He may disagree with my view that the long-term future of the UK fishing industry lies outwith the common fisheries policy, but I cannot imagine that that stance—shared by at least one other Opposition party—has been totally unhelpful to Messrs Bradshaw and Finnie in concentrating the minds of obdurate EU ministerial colleagues in recent December summits. If the minister disagrees, perhaps he can tell us how British ministers can ever negotiate successfully with states who know that there is no ultimate sanction and who have no national interest in conceding us a solitary extra herring.
The minister has been quoted as saying, somewhat forlornly, that it is now time for the Commission to change the way in which it does business. But why should it? There is nothing that UK ministers can do to make it change its ways. However, we are where we are—at least until the next UK elections.
The minister must live up to his boast of championing the best interests of Scottish fishermen—especially those in the processing sector, some of whom are represented in the public gallery today. They are going through gruelling economic times. Because of bad weather, 20 per cent of this year's haddock quota has not been caught. Similarly, 8,000 tonnes of nephrops have not been caught. The quota arrangements do not allow things to be carried forwards, so Scottish processors face ruin and their staff face the dole because they cannot get supplies of fish species that are there in abundance.
The minister must resist any attempt to cut the nephrops quota. There should have been a 10 per cent increase in the total allowable catch of monkfish in July this year, and he must achieve that in December. Most important, he dare not come back with any further reduction in days at sea. What the minister must fight for is a period of consolidation. He must demand an end to the haemorrhaging of Scottish fishery jobs. What our fishermen and processors need is light at the end of a long tunnel of despair, and the hope that one day, with the support of all parties, they can begin the task of rebuilding that once-proud Scottish industry.
I move amendment S2M-5303.1, to leave out from "an outcome" to end and insert:
"urges the Minister for Environment and Rural Development to resist all attempts to reduce nephrops and cod quotas and to press for increased haddock and monkfish quotas to secure a sustainable future for our remaining fishermen and particularly for the beleaguered processing sector and for the coastal communities dependent on fish, but ultimately believes that the only solution for Scottish fishing is to bring back control and management of the industry to Scotland."
This annual debate on the deliberations of the fisheries council is always a story of how science is woven with politics into the fabric of the common fisheries policy. It is also a story of tragedy—the tragedy of the economic hardship that is faced by fishing communities. However, there can be no greater tragedy for people in a fishing community such as Cellardyke or Anstruther than to lose their loved ones so cruelly to nature. The thoughts of members must be with all those families as we approach Christmas and new year.
We owe it to all fishing communities to weave a better type of politics into the common fisheries policy—one that is imaginative and strong and which does not play to short-term fears, but guides and supports fishing communities towards a future for fishermen and the ecology that they are inextricably part of. Once again, we have heard in the chamber the fantasy politics of withdrawal from the CFP being raised as a figurehead. Even if that were practical—and it is not—it paints a fantasy in which no tough choices have to be made and in which withdrawal will somehow instantly result in fish returning in their droves to Scottish waters. It ignores the fact that those countries that are not in the CFP have also had to make hard choices about effort reduction, just as many other countries, including Scotland, have had to make drastic cuts within the CFP. Those are decisions that Richard Lochhead would have to face if he was a minister—unless, of course, he palmed off fisheries to the Lib Dems, as Labour has done.
Withdrawal may be the politics of fantasy, but reform of the CFP must become the politics of reality, and reform is desperately slow. The minister is right to boast about the expertise and knowledge that we have in Scotland, particularly in the Fisheries Research Services, but where is the innovative thinking on introducing bycatch quotas and the important role for on-board observers, which the Executive could put into the mix? The Executive's sustainable framework for fisheries recognises bycatch quotas, but this is not a game of I spy. We are looking for action, not recognition.
I recognise that bycatch quotas might play a role, but it would be helpful if Mr Ruskell could explain how, at the moment, he would incorporate bycatch quotas in the common fisheries policy, while at the same time retaining the relative stability that is important to Scottish interests.
It is a question for the minister, working in tandem with the industry and with the FRS to develop a full package, not just bycatch quotas. We need a shift away from total allowable catches, which we know are, in fact, total allowable landings, towards a genuine ecosystem-based approach. That is what the minister is committing to in his strategy, but where is the delivery? He needs to start looking at the maximum sustainable yield—that is how we can work a bycatch quota—that may be taken year after year, not just what we can get away with this year. That is the kind of shift in thinking that we need.
We await a meaningful closed-area proposal for the North sea—one that allows regeneration of the type that was seen in the Gulf of Castellammare in the 1990s, which led to a 700 per cent increase in stocks. Where is the proposal to close areas of the North sea? Where is the proposal to close the Rockall bank, about which there is not even any argument among those in the fisheries community?
Regional advisory councils represent a genuine opportunity to improve the CFP from where it matters, with genuine bottom-up policy development, so that fishermen, processors and scientists can work together rather than against one another. I recognise that there are different opinions on the matter. Ultimately, there will be as many opinions on the best way to run a fishery as there are people involved, but we must start somewhere. We must continue to support RACs as well as sea-FAR, the advisory and reference group in which the minister plays a strong role.
The debate desperately requires to be broadened, because we are missing a trick. The politics of desperation is coming from the SNP and the Tories, and the politics of managerialism is coming from the Lib Dems and Labour. Somewhere along the line we have forgotten that fish are food, just like any other food that we buy and eat. We have made good progress in food debates in the chamber in recent years, and it is recognised that good, healthy, local food that supports the economy is also good for the environment. If we can learn anything from the absurdity of the Dawnfresh prawn-mile debacle, it is that we need a public sector that supports local food. From that platform, we could rebuild local food economies that work alongside international trade. It is obvious that we will not achieve that through withdrawal from the CFP or by increasing quotas to the point of stock collapse.
We must work with what we have got. We must work with the European fisheries fund and with eco-labelling. I hope that we will have about £9 million a year, if we get our two thirds—as we rightfully should do in Scotland—from that fund. We can do a lot with that money, which will provide an opportunity for us to turn the corner by enabling us to get our seafood into schools; to raise standards through eco-labelling under the Marine Stewardship Council; and to give the Scottish fleet the highest standards in the world. We must look to diversify into tourism, support environmental initiatives, rebuild jobs, strengthen the value added within the supply chain and provide local marketing and labelling. Dare I say to the SNP that the fund could even link into the establishment of a marine national park? It is good economic news for our fishing communities, which I welcome with relish.
We must help communities to weather the storm while stocks recover and lead them to a prosperous future rather than to ecological and economic ruin. That road starts with a vision, but it must turn into reality soon. Let us start to deliver that reality now for communities. Let us give them a positive and sustainable future.
I move amendment S2M-5303.3, to insert at end:
"and affirms that this outcome can best be achieved by shifting to long-term ecosystem-based management plans aimed towards achieving maximum sustainable yield, by making use of bycatch quotas and more technical measures in order to reduce discards and mortality in fisheries with high bycatch levels, by making innovative use of the European Fisheries Fund to support fishermen and associated communities and by supporting bottom-up approaches including the use of regional advisory councils, and urges the Executive to ensure that Scottish fishermen's adaptability and sacrifices are not undermined by short-term pressures."
Before I raise issues that are exercising fishermen and processors in the Western Isles, I ask Mr Finnie to reflect on the years during which he has been representing Scottish fishermen in Brussels. This month's negotiations will be Mr Finnie's eighth appearance in Brussels. It goes without saying that everyone—or at least every right-thinking person—in the chamber wishes him well.
When Mr Finnie sums up, I would appreciate it if he could explain what would have happened to Scotland's fishing communities had he and his United Kingdom counterpart gone to Brussels year after year advocating the irresponsible policies of the Scottish nationalist party. Can he draw on his experience and try to quantify what would have happened to fishermen's jobs and processors' jobs had he not rightly advanced policies that recognised the undeniable fact that too many boats were chasing too few fish? Where would our fishermen and our processors be today?
I appreciate and understand what Alasdair Morrison is saying, but why was it only the UK that had too many vessels chasing too few fish? Why did Spain not have too many vessels chasing too few fish? Why did Ireland not have too many vessels chasing too few fish? Why, uniquely, was this country in that position so that we had to be penalised?
A fallacy that is being advanced by both the Tories and the Scottish nationalists is that only Scotland had to reduce fishing effort. I pose the same question that I posed to the nationalists: where would we be had we maintained fishing levels and effort levels at 1,100 boats? I think that Mr Brocklebank mentioned that figure. Where would our fishing communities be today? They would not exist.
Given that Mr Finnie is Europe's longest-serving fisheries minister—I thank Mr Brocklebank for his research—he will be well able to reflect on and analyse the impact of what were and are short-term populist policies, which can be summed up as incoherent ravings.
I turn to matters of importance in my constituency. This afternoon, I had one of my regular and productive discussions with the secretary of the Western Isles Fishermen's Association, Duncan MacInnes. He told me that as a direct consequence of a change to a system whereby all sellers and buyers of prawns in Scotland are now required to register, the Western Isles has seen a 30 per cent increase in the price of prawn tails. The new system, which was introduced earlier this year, means that everything that is landed, bought and sold is recorded. It has greatly benefited the trawling sector in the Hebrides and I am sure that it will have had an equally beneficial effect on other island communities.
I hope that the minister will argue for and be able to secure the same quota levels that were obtained last year, which were 18,000 tonnes for the west coast. That plea, unlike the ravings of the nationalists, is based on science. The call to maintain those quota levels is based on the ever-improving methods of assessing stocks, which include the use of underwater television cameras. As well as showing exactly what is on the fishing grounds, that method of assessment allows scientists to return to the grounds to compare and contrast what they find with previous situations and enables proper analyses of the size and quantities of prawn stocks to be carried out.
I am happy to report that the value of prawns that are landed in the Western Isles has increased. Fishermen landed more prawns in the first eight months of 2006 than they did in the 12 months of 2005. Importantly, those increases are sustainable because size and quality continue to improve. The number of fishermen in employment remains stable, as does the number of people who are employed on land in the processing sector.
I turn briefly to the west coast monkfish quota levels. I want to probe with the minister the possibility of securing an increase in that fishery. Again, that request is based firmly on excellent collaborative work between the industry and scientists. I hope that such sensible working practices and methods of analysing the precise state of our fishing stocks will bear good fruit in the negotiations in the form of an increase in quota levels for what, as the minister knows, is a key, high-value stock. I look forward to hearing what he says about that in his summing up.
The nationalists' amendment once again betrays their obsession with constitutional niceties. They simply do not appreciate the fact that all European negotiation is about teamwork. Our team will consist of Ross Finnie and Ben Bradshaw. On occasion, when appropriate, Ross Finnie will raise the flag for the United Kingdom and, by definition, for Scotland. As someone who represents a fishing community, I do not care what number is on Ross Finnie's shirt when he negotiates a deal for our fishermen. I and all right-thinking people should be concerned about the result that Mr Finnie and Mr Bradshaw will secure for Scotland's fishing communities. We must put the long-term interests of our fishing communities before any perceived short-term political gain. That means being robust at the negotiating table and, on occasion, being brutally honest about previous practices in fishing. If we are not, not only do we con ourselves but we betray the people whom we represent.
Talking about betraying the people whom we represent, for the umpteenth time I ask Mr Rob Gibson of Scottish nationalist fame why he failed to support the fishing industry in the Western Isles almost three years ago, when—
You should be finishing now.
—the then Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development, Allan Wilson, made a proposal to protect Western Isles fishermen from the predatory fishing practices of boats from the east coast of Scotland. Will he stand up and explain to the Parliament why he and his party betrayed Western Isles fishermen?
It goes without saying that I wish Mr Finnie and Mr Bradshaw the very best in a week's time.
As someone who, until now, has listened to the annual fisheries debate from the outside, I have always been fascinated by the annual fishing round talks in December. I have wondered who on earth set up the talks at this time of year—it was obviously men, who do not face the frenzy of Christmas preparation—and whether the minister is so well organised that he does his Christmas shopping at the summer sales, although he might visit the Belgian Christmas markets en route. Perhaps he can tell me later.
My first foray into the political arena as a candidate in the mid-70s was to support the fishermen during their blockade of ports and to tackle the EU fisheries minister, who at the time was the Finnish member, Mr Gundelach. I asked him whether he was happy that, as a result of his proposals, in his retirement he would be looking across the North sea at desolate fishing villages and towns. Unfortunately, as Mr Gundelach died of an asthma attack at work in Brussels, he did not see his retirement. However, over the past 30 years, those same towns and villages in the north-east of Scotland have struggled for survival.
As I said, the Scottish fishing industry has had to fight for its survival, not because of the elements, lack of fish or lack of the ability to invest in the industry but because it has had to battle with unsympathetic Governments at all levels and an EU bureaucracy that does not have the will to see our industry survive.
Although we do not target cod, it accounts for about 20 per cent of our catch, which is a significant figure. Does the member accept that the issue is one not of bureaucracy, but of the need to take cognisance of the science on cod, which has a material effect on our fishery? Having a 20 per cent catch in a non-targeted species is a material consideration.
I am grateful to the minister for giving me the percentage of cod that is caught. I will deal with the question later in my speech.
As I said, the fishing industry has had to battle against the unfavourable terms that various Governments have set. The industry is asking for the right to life. Throughout all the turmoil of decommissioning, quotas and cuts in days at sea, it has complied with every regulation. For that, the industry was promised that things would get better, but they have not. The industry has complied with habitat directives, hygiene regulations and whatever other directive has been thrown at it. However, because of a lack of ability to plan ahead—which every industry should expect to be able to do—it faces having to crisis manage, every single day.
On behalf of the Scottish fishing sector, I say to the minister that he needs to strike out on his own at the talks. The fish processors, some of whom are with us in the gallery, are trying to do exactly what the Executive wants of Scottish industry: they are growing their markets, going for niche markets, and promoting the quality and Scottishness of their products. However, EU regulation prevents them from doing that, even within the TAC.
As other members have said, this year, boats will be able to take only about 80 per cent of their quota. The remaining 20 per cent, which represents about £30 million, has not yet been caught as a result of the tight regulations on days at sea. There is concern that no frozen fish is being stored to meet market demand over the winter. Other sectors have three-year budgeting arrangements and the fishing industry needs a similar ability to carry over days at sea and quotas which would ensure continuity of supply for markets.
The fish processors can find a market for the quota of fish that is caught. However, if the full quota cannot be caught, there will be a downward spiral that could lead to no market and no need for fishermen to go out to sea, the result of which would be crisis in the industry. The minister must press for multi-annual quotas, not only for the reason that I have set out but on the ground of safety. Skippers must never feel pressured to go to sea, whatever the weather, because they have not met their quota.
There is no doubt that we are experiencing climate change and that the gales at this time of year are getting worse. In light of the changing circumstances, instead of going for days at sea, will the minister press Brussels to change the rules? I ask the minister to consider annualised trawling times. Given that skippers keep detailed log books, it should be possible to do that. The times could be calculated from the time of the pick-up of the dhan in the winches to the time that the nets—full or otherwise—are drawn on board. Why should fishermen's working time include travel to work, and time spent seeking work, when that is not the case for anyone else?
The minister must be more challenging of the scientific research. Science still does not seem to have shifted with the current. As fishermen have detected, the cod seem to be moving to colder waters. I also want the minister to ask about the availability of sand eels as food for other species.
It is interesting to know the percentage of cod that is caught by Scottish boats, because the fact that cod is much more important in England is my final reason for asking the minister to go it alone. Cod—mainly imported—is the mainstay of the fishing industry in Grimsby and Hull and we all know why that is important to Ben Bradshaw and his colleagues.
The minister's forthcoming visit to the talks in Brussels might be his last. I ask him to bring back a big Christmas present for the Scottish fishing industry.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in what is almost an annual debate ahead of the minister's visit to Brussels for the fisheries council talks. The minister knows that he has my full support in his efforts to secure the best possible deal for the Scottish fishing fleet, which have been going on for several weeks, as he said.
I will concentrate on the importance of the North sea fishery to communities that I represent on the Berwickshire coast. The fisheries industry—offshore and onshore—remains important in Eyemouth. Boats in smaller ports, such as St Abbs, are still among the 50 or so members of the Anglo-Scottish Fishermen's Association. Our boats fish predominantly for haddock and prawns and I am told by the Fishermen's Mutual Association Eyemouth that stocks of both species are good in the area that the boats cover, which is roughly from Sunderland to the Firth of Forth. Moreover, the FMA tells me that almost no cod have been seen in either the haddock or the prawn catches of our local boats and that bycatch tends to be whiting—I emphasise that for the minister. Accordingly, my local fishing industry sees no case for reductions in total allowable catches, quotas or effort in our area.
The local industry is firmly committed to basing quotas and effort on scientific evidence, as the minister said, and thinks that the evidence is that stocks are good and bycatch minimal in the area that my constituents fish. The industry suggests that if—I repeat "if"—there is scientific evidence that juvenile cod are in bycatches to a significant extent in a particular location, the area could be treated as a conservation box and closed.
Haddock and prawns are the most important products in Berwickshire. The industry needs stability in 2007, because the market price for both species is good and we do not want to lose the opportunity that has developed as a result of the sacrifices that the Scottish fishing fleet has made.
Another opportunity for my local industry is presented by the sprat fishery in the Firth of Forth, to which my colleague Iain Smith is likely to refer in more detail. Fishermen recognise the importance of protecting the young herring that might be a bycatch of the sprat fishery. Not long ago, the FMA Eyemouth wrote to the minister to offer two vessels, which would try the fishery for a short period in an attempt to identify areas that have a clean sprat take. The offer remains on the table. The intention is that the vessels would take on board fisheries officers or scientists, who would examine the catch, to ascertain whether there is a scientific basis for reopening the fishery.
Does the member acknowledge that sprat numbers in our oceans were low in 2005 and that sprat is an important species for birds in the Firth of Forth, which attract many tourists to our wonderful sites in Fife, East Lothian and the Borders, to the benefit of the local economies?
That is correct, which is why fishermen in my part of the world want reopening of the fishery to be on the basis of scientific evidence that the fishery is sustainable. Given that much of the industry in my locality is dependent on haddock and prawns, reopening would be helpful in that it would direct effort towards another species. I emphasise that my local fishing community would like to explore those proposals with the Environment and Rural Affairs Department, to ascertain whether it would be possible to open the sprat fishery for a short time on a sustainable basis. Of course, it would be necessary to take up the eventual findings with the Commission to ensure that the reopening happened on a proper basis.
I am sure that Ross Finnie would be surprised, perhaps even disappointed, if I did not mention in a fisheries debate the Eyemouth ice plant. After a short period of respite for him, I ask him to consider my several representations about the ice plant. Suffice it to say that the plant is of immense importance to the future of the port of Eyemouth. The fact that competitor ports in North Shields and Amble have developed ice plants means that, after a much better period, it is again more difficult to achieve viability. I suggest to the minister that he discuss with his counterpart in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether some form of planning could go into that vital provision for the industry on the east coast. It is unfortunate that overprovision of supply threatens the future of all.
Another practical suggestion is that the proposed regional advisory council development officer should be located in Eyemouth; ironically, that could assist the viability of the ice plant. That development is important. As the minister knows, I have been a supporter of the development of regional advisory councils for many years.
I wish Mr Finnie every success in his negotiations. I am sure that all members will join me in that.
The annual debate that we have ahead of the fisheries council is becoming as traditional as the festive season. The same issues are debated in Parliament every year, but that is not because of a lack of engagement by the Parliament and the Executive on this vital matter for Scotland—we know how important the industry is. The tragedies that have occurred this year, which members have mentioned, remind us of the sacrifices that are made for the industry.
The debate occurs because the goal of a successful and sustainable fishing industry is difficult to achieve. Those who think that there are easy answers are kidding themselves and the industry. This year, as in previous years, the negotiations will be challenging, but they are vital for the north-east of Scotland, not just in relation to the economic viability of the industry, but because of the social impact in the area. For example, nine of the 10 most deprived areas in Aberdeenshire are dependent on fisheries. That is why, when discussing the negotiations, we must consider the Executive's work in the area as a whole. Anybody who questions what the Executive has done to support the industry and the areas that are dependent on it should think about initiatives such as the building Buchan programme.
The member mentions areas that are heavily dependent on fishing. Will he explain to someone who is not familiar with the area that he describes whether the communities there would be better or worse off if they had followed the nonsense that the Scottish nationalists advocate?
They would of course be much worse off. The member made that point eloquently in his speech and it is difficult for me to follow that. The point is well made. [Interruption.] I see that the member has riled the Opposition.
Other initiatives, such as support for the Peterhead Port Authority and the harbour slipway improvements at Macduff, are supported through the financial instrument for fisheries guidance. It is right to invest so that Scotland's fishing industry can grow and have a better future to look forward to. That is why, along with others, I made representations to ministers that it is crucial that the fishing courses at Banff and Buchan College continue. Otherwise, vital skills will be lost to the industry locally, which would seriously threaten its long-term future. I was pleased to hear that, along with extra support from the fishing industry and Aberdeenshire Council, the Scottish Funding Council has intervened to ensure that the courses continue. We must now do all that we can to ensure greater take-up of the courses.
The member referred to Peterhead harbour. Does he think it particularly useful that the introduction of the aggregates tax by his colleagues at Westminster has taken £5.5 million out of the local economy and kiboshed the development of an additional breakwater at Peterhead, which was being considered, because the tax changed the economics of the proposal?
I was referring to the great benefits that have come through the financial instrument for fisheries guidance. I would have thought that the member would welcome them, and the many Executive-led initiatives that have benefited the area.
The outcome of the negotiations is important to the future of the industry. During the negotiations, it must be acknowledged that Scotland has already made a huge contribution to reduction of effort. Priority should be given to ensuring that other member states are contributing at the same level. I note from the briefing by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds that it is concerned that, despite Scotland's good efforts, there remains fleet overcapacity elsewhere. That issue must be addressed.
There is a hugely difficult balance to strike in the negotiations. There is the advice from some, which is genuinely given, that we must heed the scientific advice much more, but it must be recognised that that would have great consequences for the industry—in my view, too great. Others argue that the advice should be ignored, which is simply irresponsible. I support the balance that the minister has sought to achieve in his approach to the negotiations, which is aimed at ensuring that the industry can be sustainable and that when, as we hope, stocks increase, the industry can grow from its current position. In some areas of the industry, there are already tentative signs of improved profitability. These are very challenging circumstances, but in just such a context in the past the minister has had a great deal of success in working towards achieving the ambition of a sustainable industry.
I welcome the minister's determination in this year's negotiations to argue against some of the proposals on restriction of effort and for increases in TAC for some important fisheries. The minister was right to point out the efforts that we have made to minimise illegal landings. The fact that his position in the talks is clearly evidence based should put us in a strong position and must be acknowledged by the Commission.
We have again heard opposition to the very concept of the CFP. The amendments do not call directly for withdrawal, but they are certainly critical of the concept, as if leaving the CFP would be a panacea for the industry. Such calls in the chamber are simply political opportunism. It is ridiculous to pretend that we could rip up the CFP and renegotiate agreements, and that, as a result, there would be more fish in the sea and we would be able to ignore scientific advice. Such a step would threaten to destroy the industry rather than enable it to build towards a more successful future. Pulling out of the CFP is impossible without withdrawal from the European Union, which would have a devastating impact on our economy—where would that leave the policy of Scotland in Europe? Furthermore, doing so would not benefit the industry.
We do not accept that an unreformed CFP is the way forward, either. Reform of the CFP is the only way forward, and the Executive is leading the way on that. Further progress on developing regional advisory councils, which the Executive has promoted enthusiastically, is vital, as they are an important step towards local management of fisheries, further involving those in the industry and their communities in important decisions. That is the right course to take. I am confident that in the short term the minister is taking the right course in negotiations. He has had important successes in the process before, and I hope that he has further success this year, so that we can look forward to a long, profitable and sustainable future for our fishing industry.
I advise members that I will give Rob Gibson and Jim Wallace four minutes each for their speeches.
Although I wish the minister well in his negotiations in Brussels, I hope that this year's meeting will not be a repeat of previous years' meetings, from which the minister emerged clutching a piece of paper on which Britain's concessions were written large. I do not need to remind the minister of the reduction in the size of the Scottish fleet since 1999 or of the loss of associated jobs in the fish-processing industry. The Scottish fishing industry cannot afford any more cuts; it must be with that in mind that the minister journeys to Brussels next week.
Since Labour came to power—power that it still shares with the Lib Dems—we have seen the loss of three boats a week from the Scottish fleet. Fishermen are taking more risks and fishing further from shore so that they can fill their quotas in areas where they are allowed to fish. Where is health and safety in that? Enough is enough. The systematic destruction of the fishing industry by cuts passed down from Brussels has destroyed livelihoods and is destroying communities. We have suffered for long enough while the common fisheries policy has been handed down from on high.
I hope that the minister will go to Brussels next week with fire in his belly and steel in his spine, because we cannot afford to see further cuts. The fishing industry has had enough. In Scotland, it is situated mainly in fragile and remote areas where the loss of any jobs has a disproportionate effect. Often, little alternative employment is available.
Are we to take it from the member's statement that enough is enough that he and the Conservative party wish to ignore the scientific advice and to go in for Olympian fisheries on every stock? I ask the member to tell us how many years it would be, under that irresponsible policy, before we had no fishing industry.
With respect, if the minister goes on for much longer there will not be any fishing industry left.
At least there will be fish.
I will carry on.
The Scottish fishing industry needs a period of consolidation and a Government at home to bring forward new ideas. For example, we know that it is set in cement that Brussels sets the TACs for all species in December. Why could not regional management groups throughout Scotland work out between them who gets what of the Scottish TAC? Let us have different groups dealing with each other so that Scotland's full TAC is taken up. They could decide who fishes where and when.
This year, Scottish fishermen have not taken all the haddock and prawn TACs. Local catchers and processors could work out locally how the full TAC could be taken. That is what the processing sector is asking for. It does not have the product to process, which is extremely frustrating. How can businesses survive in those circumstances? Given the dreadful weather in the past two months, fishermen have been unable to catch all their quotas, which cannot be carried forward. The processing sector is frustrated. Let us not forget that it employs many more people on land than the boats employ at sea. George MacRae of the Scottish White Fish Producers Association estimates that there are four to five jobs onshore for every one at sea.
If we cannot have local management of TACs, perhaps we could have more local management of Scottish quotas, so that the share of the cake handed out to Scotland is consumed fully by the Scottish fishing industry. There is another important reason for that: because the west coast prawn TAC has not been fished out this year, the commissioners just might try to cut next year's TAC. I hope that they will not follow that illogical step, which would punish Scottish fishermen for fishing responsibly—but with them one just never knows.
Why should our fishermen be sacrificed on the altar of a cod recovery plan that is broken and discredited—a plan conceived by Franz Fischler, who will go down in Scottish history as a destroyer of jobs rather than as a saviour of cod? The Commission cannot get the cod recovery plan by garrotting our white fish industry, so it is turning its gaze towards the west coast prawn industry. The minister must point out that hardly any cod are caught by that industry on the west coast. Areas where there is a concentration of spawning cod, such as in the Firth of Clyde, are rightly closed to fishing to protect the cod stocks.
There are no grounds for a cut in the prawn industry and nothing less than last year's TAC is acceptable. I hope that the minister agrees with that and with the Scottish Fishermen's Federation which, when discussing nephrops, said:
"Contrary to the statement in the Commission's July paper"—
which said that there would be a rollover of the 2006 TAC—
"an arcane argument has begun between ICES and the EU's own STECF committee over what should be the harvest rate. This has resulted in the first proposals containing an unacceptable reduction. This must be challenged."
I agree with Alasdair Morrison, who called for a big increase in the monkfish quota, which is entirely justified by whatever brand of science one cares to look at. I wish the minister good luck in Brussels and ask him please to come back with a good deal for our fishermen.
Just because this debate takes place in December, we do not have to focus only on what happens in Brussels—although that is a major part of it. The debate has to deal with the whole fishing industry. It is, once again, hooked on the EU demand that a cod management plan take precedence—which ignores the scientific advice on healthy haddock and prawn stocks, particularly the prawn stocks on the west coast.
The minister ought to try and clarify for the Labour and Tory spokesmen the number of monkfish that are available. He told the Environment and Rural Development Committee in the warm-up to the debate that the science on monkfish was poor. Perhaps he will clarify that in his closing speech.
Scotland loses out because the CFP inflicts remote and damaging rules without listening to fishermen's views. The Scottish minister said that fishermen who give evidence through sea-FAR will find the dialogue with the Commission extremely disappointing.
Will the member give way?
Not at the moment.
The need for longer timescales to plan a sustainable fishery has never been more evident. Mr Finnie has stated to the committee that 59 per cent of fishing activity is controlled in some shape or form by agreements that are reached between us and parties in the EU and beyond. Therefore, 41 per cent of activity is in the hands of local people with local rules. However, the quota stocks and the non-quota stocks all live in the same waters. Surely it is time for a comprehensive Scottish fishing plan. While we can have underwater cameras looking to see what the stocks of cod and haddock are, we do not have underwater cameras looking at the stocks of scallops. That suggests to me that, if we are going to have a total plan, that is the kind of argument that we have to have. People such as Mr Morrison, who employ ludicrous posturing while purporting to represent the Western Isles, had better shut up because we need science as the basis for this argument and we do not have it in relation to those stocks.
The process of fevered annual negotiations in Brussels is like dealing with the interests of salmon in a river system and ignoring the ecological balance and the health of other species that are found there. Since fishermen increasingly accept scientists on their boats and are able to provide ICES with lots of good information, it is high time the Commission caught up with that good practice in Scottish waters and moved towards having long-term management plans in local hands.
If the inshore fisheries groups deal only with the non-quota stocks and the area advisory committees deal with generalities, surely we must find a way to bring those together. As I said, we are trying to deal with a total fisheries policy.
The SNP has proved that the common fisheries policy has been bad for Scotland. There is every reason to suggest that an SNP-led Government could do much better.
Ross Finnie is not being allowed to take the lead in the discussions, no matter what is said about that. The team must be led by a Government that has a seat at the top table. Therefore, it is necessary to end this farce and ensure that longer-term planning is brought in. An annual round is a useless way in which to proceed. Sustainability in the seas takes much longer-term planning. Until the common fisheries policy moves on to such a method, this annual farce will continue.
I am pleased to be able to take part in this debate. As a number of speakers have indicated, this is an annual debate that takes place before the meeting of the December fisheries council. I first took part in such a debate on 6 December 1983; this will be my last. As someone said, it is amazing how the issues have not lost much of their character, in terms of the calls to strengthen the minister's hand and attempts to reflect our particular concerns from our respective parts of the country.
Earlier, I raised with the minister an issue that I have raised in a number of these debates. It is to do with how much of what is decided at the meeting next week will be pre-empted by the discussions between the European Union and Norway. The minister indicated his profound disappointment with the agreement that was struck in relation to the 14 per cent reduction in cod catch, but he also indicated that a number of member states are not in any effective position to influence that, given that the matter is in the hands of the Commission.
I know that the minister shares my view that it is unsatisfactory that there is so much power in the hands of officials who are not subject to the necessary political oversight. I hope that further changes can be made so that, when some crucial decisions are being taken, the important political input can be strengthened.
As even Richard Lochhead conceded, in 2006, price levels have managed to keep the industry viable. However, there are concerns about the fact that restrictions on the cod TAC or the number of days at sea could lead to a reduction in effort that would have a knock-on consequence for the industry. The Orkney and Shetland industries would view as extremely bad news any further reductions in the effort that they are allowed to put in, particularly because, as the minister indicated, such a reduction is not necessarily backed up by the science.
If there is to be a reduction, it must reflect the considerable efforts that have already been made in Scotland, including the 65 per cent reduction in capacity and the use of larger mesh sizes. The reductions in effort have been substantial. As the minister said at the end of his opening speech, further effort reduction should be concentrated on the number of fleets that have not had to bear as much effort reduction up to now.
To secure viability, some boats need to buy or lease in days, but that is becoming more expensive. That is another reason why I strongly support the minister's declared intention to resist further attempts to cut back days, which would have an effect on our fleet.
The minister said that there has been a significant increase in haddock stocks around Rockall and that the United Kingdom can claim a reasonable share of them. The European Commission's proposal—15 per cent of a low base—does not go far enough compared with the level anticipated by the scientists. I welcome what the minister said about trying to get a bigger TAC for Rockall haddock. If more effort can be switched to there—the minister knows from meetings that the Orkney boats have done a considerable amount of fishing around Rockall—that will not only make the fleet more viable but take pressure off the North sea.
I wish the minister well as he faces the reality of the council talks as opposed to the fantasy that the SNP and the Conservatives talk about. The SNP seems to think that we should ignore the problems with cod, but we cannot. The SNP also seems to think that if Ross Finnie and Ben Bradshaw changed seats, there would be a great increase in fish stocks. As for the Tories, Alasdair Morrison's challenge to them was right. If Jamie McGrigor had his way, we would have had no cut in the number of boats. I do not know how any economist could think that any of them would be viable.
The minister grapples with reality. He leads us, as he has done in the past, as he puts in every effort to secure the best for the Scottish fishing fleet. I am sure that he takes the Parliament's good wishes with him as he tries to do that again next week.
This debate on fishing is a seasonal feast. Like Christmas, it is predictable. It has become an institution, but it is none the less important for that. The issue remains the same—the need to sustain a viable fishery and a viable fishing industry. We cannot have the latter without the former, no matter what the SNP and the Tories say.
The industry has made huge sacrifices but, disappointingly, fish stocks, particularly cod stocks, are still at risk. The EC again rejects a total ban on fishing for cod, but it proposes further cuts to quotas and TACs for white-fish fleets, and bycatches might be scrutinised more closely. It will be particularly hard if stricter bycatch regulations have an effect on our nephrops fishery, which has become crucial because it sustains livelihoods in fishing communities. We therefore need to make it a priority to find robust ways of managing the cod bycatch other than discard, which is an affront to sustainability, or illegal landings, which put us in such bad odour with the Commission in the past and caused difficulties in negotiations. Thankfully, illegal landings are now very rare. Our fleet is not the only one that has a cod bycatch. Other fleets' bycatch has been underrated, and Ross Finnie's task will be to point that out to the Commission while protecting our nephrops fleets.
We need to insist on the use of selective gear throughout the EU and monitor it to ensure that it is used properly. The use of nets with sorting grids and escape panels must be supported. What incentive will the Commission give fishermen to encourage them to use selective gear? We need the carrot as well as the stick. Successful selective gear trials have been carried out in Scotland. In the nephrops fishery in the North sea, an escape panel enabled 50 per cent of small cod and white fish to get away while the prawns were retained. Such equipment should be in use throughout European waters, but we must also ensure that it is used properly. I regret that there is anecdotal evidence that some skippers combine old-style nets with the new selective gear. In other words, they make a pretence of sustainable fishing. If that is true, it must be stopped by whatever means we have available.
We want to eat good, home-caught fish and shellfish from a sustainable fishery, not prawns that have been ferried halfway around the world to be shelled in Thailand before they are sent back to be breadcrumbed in Scotland. I get annoyed that tiger prawns are regularly on sale in our supermarkets, whereas we seldom see our native langoustines.
The decisions that are taken in Brussels this month will affect processors and the whole downstream industry as well as fishermen. Prices for fish have been good, and people have been eating more fish because they recognise that it is healthy food that can be prepared quickly. At last there is a growing perception that fish—white fish in particular—can be made into high-quality, gourmet food, and people now think that it is worth paying extra money for such food. Fish is no longer seen as a commodity that is as likely to end up in a tin of pet food as on the fishmonger's slab.
I congratulate the Seafish Industry Authority, which works across all sectors to promote good-quality sustainable seafood. It works with people right across the board, from trawlermen to fish friers, via buyers, processors and wholesalers—it even provides seafood recipes on its website, which is well worth a visit.
I am sorry that we have heard the usual nonsense from the SNP and the Tories; indeed, I wonder what the blue/green David Cameron would think of Jamie McGrigor's speech.
In today's meeting of the Environment and Rural Development Committee, we discussed how the Parliament could mainstream sustainable development. I assumed that the SNP endorsed doing so.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry, but I am in my final minute.
I have listened to what SNP members—including Richard Lochhead, who is not in the chamber—have said. They have again ignored the scientific advice, maintained that all stocks are healthy and that cod do not matter. I fear that they are, as usual, speaking with forked tongue. A party that aspires to government cannot cherry pick where and when it will endorse sustainability—it should have a seamless approach. The Executive has sought to be consistent and to balance environmental, social and economic considerations.
I have said before that all-night talks in December are surely not the best way to hammer out a fishing policy. I look forward to a better way of managing things in the future. I think that the approaching talks will be the toughest yet. We wish the minister well.
Members always have interesting but limited debates on fisheries at this time of the year. These debates are clearly not about Scotland's fisheries, fishing industry or fishing communities. Rather, they are about December meetings of the EU fisheries council. As a result, what members can discuss is limited. The extent to which we can explore how we would like things to be done and how we would like the industry to develop is limited. Indeed, the debates have become bidding wars, as each member puts the case for having no TAC or quota reductions. What happens is understandable under the current system, but it is not helpful. It would be nice to have a fisheries debate in May or June when we are not looking forward to a December fisheries council meeting and we can take a step back and look holistically at our fishing industry. There could then be a very interesting debate.
As Mark Ruskell said, the Greens believe that there should be a common fisheries policy but do not think that the current common fisheries policy is the best policy. Rather, we think that it needs to be extensively reformed. That said, a common fisheries policy should exist because resources such as the marine environment and fisheries must be managed jointly by everyone who is affected by them.
The Faroes were mentioned in an intervention. People who wish to withdraw from the CFP tend to think that all is sweetness and light in countries that are not constrained by CFP restrictions. However, Faroese fishing—in fact, the entire Faroese economy, which depends heavily on fishing—was in crisis in the 1990s as a direct result of overfishing and overinvestment in fishing capacity. A similar thing happened to parties to the CFP. In the 1990s, the Faroese tried individual transferable quotas, but they did not have much success; they now have a days-at-sea restriction. Wherever people are, they must manage their fishing fleet so that it is kept sustainable.
At what level will the fishing fleet be sustainable?
It will be sustainable when the fishing effort matches the number of fish that can safely be caught without stocks being depleted—it is as simple as that. A balance must be achieved. We have gone a long way towards achieving that balance, and the industry has gone through a lot of pain to achieve it. We do not want to throw away the gains that have been made.
Will the member take another intervention?
In a minute, perhaps. I want to make progress, otherwise I will run out of time.
Ross Finnie mentioned maximising the value of each fish. That is crucial. Fishermen report that, since the clampdown on illegal landings, the price that they are getting has increased. Another way of maximising the value of the fish could be eco-labelling. That would depend on having a well-recognised sustainable fishery that everybody could accept as such and that could be certified and accredited by the Marine Stewardship Council. That is done for some species in Alaska and New Zealand and for Loch Torridon nephrops, which I understand fetch a good price in Spain, although we do not often see them here.
The language in such debates tends to get a little apocalyptic at times. Fishing is always painted as a sector in crisis and we are told that if there are any more cuts, the industry will disappear. It is true that the industry has downsized quite a lot, but the Executive's figures show that, although employment in the catching sector of the fishing industry fell by 6 per cent in 2004-05—and 6 per cent in a year is a fair bit—the value of landings in the same year increased by 14 per cent. I hope that there is a viable living to be had from fishing, at least for those who remain. Apocalyptic language is sometimes unhelpful.
Cod stocks are outside safe biological limits. We recognise the concern that concentrating on cod has a knock-on effect on other fisheries. Some people seem to think that we are concentrating too much on cod, but I would hate us to conspire in the extinction of a species. I talked to some fishermen at the conference on European maritime policy a week past Monday. They report that they are catching some young cod and seeing some fair-sized cod in some places. The species is regenerating and, even with climate change, which possibly means that the fish are migrating north, there are still young cod in Scottish waters. The fishermen have endured much of the pain of the cod recovery plan, and the minister must not let that be in vain and throw the gains away.
Bycatch has been mentioned. I was glad that Maureen Macmillan mentioned technical measures, because nobody else had done so. I hope that, in his closing speech, the minister will say something about what technical measures are being considered at European level.
The other issue is discards. The public find discards unacceptable. We want the fishing industry to be held in high regard by the public, which I think it is. It is an iconic industry and people have a huge amount of respect for fishermen, but discards are unacceptable. I note that, when the minister gave evidence to the Environment and Rural Development Committee, the civil servant who was accompanying him said:
"One of the important issues with discards is to know the facts. One of our priorities this year will be to ensure that all member states provide discards data, so that we have a handle on that."—[Official Report, Environment and Rural Development Committee, 6 December 2006; c 3778.]
That would be interesting, because we need to know what the situation is. We need to be sure that the science is right, and part of knowing that the science is right is not throwing the evidence unrecorded over the side of a boat. Perhaps the minister could say something about the need to be sure that we are getting reliable data on discards.
Mark Ruskell mentioned that we must try to take an ecosystem approach. We would never try to save any terrestrial species just by not hunting any more of it; we would try to preserve its environment as well. We must do the same for fish; we must consider closed areas—that is, no-take zones, which have been used in New Zealand. When New Zealand introduced its first no-take zone, it was opposed by everybody, but there are now 27 and the fishermen are asking for them. Perhaps the minister can say why the European Commission seems unwilling to consider such measures.
I wish the minister well. May wisdom prevail in Brussels.
The December fisheries talks are always of great concern to fishing communities throughout Scotland, none more so than the communities in the east neuk of Fife, who will be mourning the crew of the Meridian in a memorial service in Anstruther this weekend. Our thoughts are with the families of the crew and we hope that, when the search for the boat resumes in the spring, it will quickly be found and some comfort will be brought to those families.
The debate has been interesting, if perhaps predictable. Year after year, we get the same tired, old arguments from the unholy alliance of nationalists and Conservatives, who rehearse the unrealistic belief that we can somehow withdraw from the common fisheries policy but remain in Europe. Not even David Cameron believes that and, to be frank, he will believe anything.
Although I support the long-term reform of the common fisheries policy to give more control and responsibility to local fishermen to develop locally sustainable fisheries—responsibility is a key part of that—the blunt truth is that withdrawal from the common fisheries policy will not add a single fish to the sea. The problem with the Scottish National Party and the Tories is that they say they want proper management of Scotland's waters—that is what Richard Lochhead said—but they never say what proper management of Scotland's waters would mean.
Jamie McGrigor gave us an idea of how it could work.
Jamie McGrigor indicated that it would be a free-for-all. As Alasdair Morrison has rightly tried to highlight throughout the debate, if we had followed the rhetoric of the SNP and the Tories over the past eight years, there would be no fishing industry to defend because there would be no fish left. That is the blunt reality. Year after year, the SNP and the Tories criticise those of us who try to provide a realistic solution at the fisheries council and they demand that in effect we allow fishermen to catch what they want. If we had done that, sadly, there would be nothing left to catch.
I ask Mr Brocklebank or whoever is summing up for the Conservatives to tell us how we would influence the reduction of other fleets if we are not even at the table. For example, how would we prevent the sand-eel fisheries from being reopened if we were not at the table? How does Richard Lochhead think that our negotiating position would be strengthened if, year after year, we had to open separate talks with Norway, the EU and, for that matter, England?
From all reports, ample numbers of haddock are being caught at the moment. Iain Smith says that there is nothing left to catch. The Executive's policy would mean that there is nothing left to catch them with.
What I said is that if we had left policy on fisheries to the Tories and the SNP, there would be nothing left to catch. There are haddock to catch because serious and sensible effort-control methods have been implemented to conserve our haddock stocks and allow them to regenerate. However, the SNP and the Conservatives just want to throw cod on to the sacrificial pile. Furthermore, as they have not yet come up with one, they would continue their policy of not having a proper management system in the North sea.
Is the member not being slightly hypocritical, given that the minister, who is a Liberal Democrat, has slated some recent policy statements from the European Commission? Surely there is at least some common ground there.
With the deepest respect, the issue of our minister going into the negotiations to get the best deal for Scotland's fishermen is somewhat different from what has been proposed time and again by the Conservatives and the SNP.
Iain Smith made the point that if we were not part of the European Union, there would be no fish left to catch. Does he think that there are no fish left to catch in Norwegian waters? Are there no fish left to catch in Faroese waters? What about Icelandic waters? His proposition is nonsense. It is the Executive's management system that has been catastrophic for our fish stocks.
That is not what I have been saying. I said that if we had followed the Tories' policies, we would have no management system in the North sea and there would be no fish left to catch. The number of cod in the North sea is the same for Norwegian and Scottish fishermen, which is why the EU has to negotiate with the Norwegians every year on the quota for cod and haddock. It is nonsense to say that there are more fish in Norwegian waters, because Norway has a different structure, than there are in the North sea because we are in the EU. There are not—there is the same amount of cod.
I turn to more local issues. The minister knows the importance of the nephrops quota to the fishermen in the east neuk of Fife. This has perhaps been one of the first years in which Fife fishermen have had the chance to make a living from the prawn quota and to maintain a sustainable fishery. We welcome that. However, we cannot afford to go backwards; indeed, there is no need to cut the quotas of nephrops in the Firth of Forth. The ICES survey says:
"The TV survey estimate of abundance for Nephrops in the Firth of Forth suggests that the population declined between 1993 and 1998, but has increased since then and has been at a relatively high level in the last four years."
The nephrops fishery in the Firth of Forth is sustainable—we must maintain that.
There are a couple of specific issues in the Firth of Forth. Fife fishermen have demonstrated that they can create a clean sprat fishery in the Firth of Forth with no or few juvenile herring in the catch. However, there is an issue about the future of the herring in the Firth of Forth. We need a long-term study of the biodiversity of the Firth of Forth to find out how it is changing and how it can be sustained. In the meantime, I see no reason why, with proper inspections of the catch to ensure that there is no bycatch of juvenile herring, we cannot allow a sprat fishery in the Firth of Forth at a sustainable level.
I would like the minister to comment at some point on the attempt by the south-east inshore fisheries group to appoint a co-ordinator. There is funding available from the Scottish Executive, but no organisation appears to be willing to take on that co-ordinator. I hope that the minister can influence someone to provide the employment of a co-ordinator.
Ross Finnie will not sacrifice the cod in the North sea, as Richard Lochhead would. Nor will he allow the North sea to become a free-for-all, as Ted Brocklebank and the Tories would. However, he will do his best for our fishermen to ensure sustainable fish stocks for the long-term future of the fishing industry.
It is interesting that some of us have now sat through eight debates on the December fisheries council. Although there might be a measurable difference between the first and the eighth debate, the difference from one year to the next is often difficult to assess.
The minister started by outlining what he hopes to achieve in the negotiations. Like everyone else today, I hope that he achieves what he set out in his initial remarks. The problem is that, too often in the past, he has returned from Europe battered and bruised as a result of the treatment that he has received at the hands of his European colleagues.
Today's debate reached the point that we usually get to, with the members who sit behind the minister blatantly misrepresenting or abusing Conservative policies, some of which are shared by our SNP colleagues on the opposite side of the chamber.
Careful.
Before I instil too much fear on SNP members opposite, let me develop that point slightly.
One misrepresentation that has always concerned me is the suggestion that our proposal of withdrawing from the common fisheries policy would result in a free-for-all. In reality, part of the reason why we have suggested such a policy in the past—
Will the member take an intervention on that point?
I am about to explain the point.
Part of our reason for suggesting a withdrawal from the common fisheries policy is that the European negotiating mechanism is too cumbersome. On many occasions, it has prevented us from taking the steps that the industry has agreed are essential. In some cases, those steps might have involved taking measures even more draconian than those that were taken, but they would have been enacted in a more timely and less severe fashion and they would have achieved the results that we wanted.
As Eleanor Scott pointed out, fisheries ought to be controlled by those who are affected by them. The problem with the current common fisheries policy is that it allows those who are not affected to become actively involved in the control of fishery regions. That is why we were so enthusiastic in our support for the 2001 EU green paper that proposed regional management of European fisheries. What a wonderful idea. Unfortunately, the regional advisory committees that eventually materialised from that proposal are toothless and have little or nothing to contribute to the sustainable management of Europe's fisheries.
I have another couple of points to make about what the minister is trying to achieve in the negotiations. At a meeting that one or two of us attended earlier today, fish processors pointed out that the current circumstances are not easy for processors to tolerate. In the current year, haddock with an estimated value to the industry of £30 million and prawns with an estimated value to the industry of £35 million will remain uncaught. Talk about increasing the quotas could be quite irrelevant if we cannot achieve the current quotas.
Processors want to see some relief on the restrictions on days at sea. They understand that reduced effort is necessary to reduce catches, but the problem is that simply not enough days are available to our fishermen to catch the quotas that they have been allocated. It is essential for the processors that some flexibility is built into the system. At the moment, processors do not get the fish that they need, they do not get them sufficiently regularly and they cannot build up reserves in their freezers to cover the quiet periods. Quite often, boats may not go to sea for long periods when the weather is bad because the fishermen want to save up their days for when the weather improves. That position is as economically unsustainable as some of the positions that we have discussed today are ecologically unsustainable.
It is interesting that the same speakers who criticise the Conservatives and the SNP for the position that we have taken often go on to support our position in the remarks that they make and the examples that they give. It was interesting to hear Richard Baker say that he believed that Scotland's fishermen have already done more than their fair share. That point was backed by Jim Wallace and it is one that we can all understand and subscribe to. Sadly, although we hear people talking about methods of reducing both discards and the bycatch of smaller fish, those methods are not being evenly employed across Europe's fishing industry. It is time for the minister to talk to the Europeans about how they should reduce their effort, bycatch and discards and follow the example of Scotland's fishing industry and fishermen in being more sustainable.
Every year when I have spoken in the debate, I have concluded by wishing the minister luck. The position that the minister set out in his opening speech—if he can achieve it—will be worth while for our industry. I suggest that, instead of succumbing to the beating of his European colleagues, this year he puts on his bovver boots, goes over there and plants a few well-placed kicks in some European sterns.
Let me start by trying to identify some of the things that all those who have participated today, and colleagues who have not, can agree on.
The first clear point is that—to use the words that Richard Baker used—we all want a successful, sustainable industry. We may differ about the route to that and about some of the difficulties that we face in delivering that, but let us at least nail the fact that we all share that objective and let us not have name calling and the setting up of straw men simply to attack the bona fides of other members in relation to that objective.
Secondly, we could possibly agree that Ross Finnie is the best man for the job in the coming negotiations in Brussels. I have to accept that part of my reason for that is that we do not have any choice, so he is the best man of the one available. However, he is a bit better than that, because he has experience. He is a pretty knowledgeable fisheries minister, he is relatively articulate and he deserves success on his valedictory visit to the December fisheries council. We will all give a loud hurrah if he delivers on the agenda that we share. We wish Ross Finnie well in every possible respect.
The third point on which we might reasonably be said to agree is that, from every political persuasion in the Parliament today, we have heard specific criticisms of the practice of the CFP. We may be divided on whether the CFP can be amended to be fit for purpose or whether it should be scrapped and replaced, but we have all agreed that there is a serious problem in how the CFP works.
I want to say a few words about science, because we misrepresent both scientists and the scientific process by some of the simplifications that we use. We must all acknowledge, as scientists would, that there is a limit to our knowledge of what goes on in the complex ecostructure that is our oceans. There are variations in the scientific interpretation that is derived from the shared data that we have, and there is a difference in the responses that we draw from the interpretations in different jurisdictions. In a sense, the ICES document represents an average view, which conceals a wide range of scientific conclusions based on shared data. We cannot materially improve knowledge quickly, but we can look at other jurisdictions to see the different policies that are implemented based on the same data.
The Faroes have been mentioned. The Faroes had serious difficulties but, because they could make their decisions as quickly as they wanted to, and as close to their own fishermen as they were able to, they were able to develop, incrementally, a resolution to the difficulties that they faced. There is huge value in local control. We might disagree about the variety of local control that we want to deliver, and the pace at which we want to deliver it, but we are all saying that there is huge value in local control.
We have to remember that even those of us in the Parliament with scientific experience are now somewhat distant from the practical application of it. We should therefore be very cautious in drawing scientific conclusions for ourselves. However, it is our job to be critical and then to promote policies that respond to the scientific knowledge that is available.
The process by which decisions are taken in Europe is farcical in the extreme. The proposed regulation that I have in my hand is dated 5 December. It has 212 pages, it describes 90 fish stocks and it addresses the needs of 20 fisheries. It came out at the beginning of December and for three days politicians, in a time-boxed way, have to make political decisions on it. The time that is available to consider the proposals is so limited that, in essence, science goes out the window and we have realpolitik and politics, and very little more. The process is inflexible and no longer fit for purpose. The minister himself has criticised much that has happened, but he has given us some good news.
Ted Brocklebank referred to landings at Aberdeen and I will expand slightly on what he said. We were told by processors that on one day in Aberdeen half a box of fish was landed, and that on the following day three boxes were landed. That is a measure of the difficulties that occur from time to time.
Mark Ruskell is one of the brightest of our young MSPs but, from some of the things that he said, I think that his analysis runs somewhat ahead of his knowledge.
Alasdair Morrison, of the labourist party, is just a relic of Eilean an Iar. I think that I can dismiss him with no further reference whatsoever.
He is not here.
No, he is not here—because he does not like to hear what people have to say.
I say to Iain Smith that we simply do not have a proper management system in the common fisheries policy. It is proper that we continue to debate whether the CFP can be changed to provide a proper management system, or whether it cannot. We are the pessimists; Mr Smith is among the optimists.
I am sorry, but I am in my last minute.
In Scotland, we have 25 per cent of the European Union's seas, 68 per cent of the UK's landings and 74 per cent of the UK's tonnage. That is why these issues matter to us on this side of the chamber, and why they matter to Scotland.
If the present state of cod stocks and other vulnerable stocks in the North sea is a measure of the success of the CFP, I certainly would not like to deal with failure. It is time to change the medicine.
This debate has in some ways been predictable. As Alex Johnstone observed, not much seems to have changed over the years. However, it was disappointing that both the leading Conservative spokesman and the leading SNP spokesman chose to base much of their speeches on a piece that appeared in The Herald in recent weeks. The piece was particularly gloomy about the state of the Scottish fishing industry, and the two spokesmen were anxious to put that across to the chamber. However, they did not read to us the letter that appeared in The Herald the next day. It was written by the chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. On the gloom and doom of the previous day's analysis, he said this:
"We believe your analysis is out of date, defeatist and unsupported by the facts."
He continued by saying that the fishing industry is
"still here and, despite your prophesies of doom, will be for years."
I commend that letter to the chamber.
I will come back to Mr Brocklebank in a moment. [Interruption.] If Mr Brocklebank is disputing the facts of his gloom and doom—[Interruption.]
Order.
I understand that Mr Brocklebank's comments were ill-informed, but that does not help his argument.
I shall deal briefly with some of the points that were made. Alasdair Morrison challenged me about where we would be, which is an extremely interesting question. Although the reduction in the white-fish fleet was prompted, and continues to be pressured, by the state of the cod stock, it is interesting to observe that the scientists who look at far healthier stocks now conclude that the level of effort being applied by the Scottish fleet—effort that has reduced by 65 per cent—is allowing those stocks to be fished sustainably. The conclusion that we must therefore come to is that, unless we had made those efforts, the stocks would have been fished unsustainably, which would have been greatly to the detriment of the Scottish fishing fleet in the medium and longer term.
Maureen Watt raised climate change issues, on which ICES and others have been challenged. They have responded to the effect that, although they acknowledge the changes in movements and the differences in plankton, there is no evidence—despite scientific investigation—of any cod being discovered in northern waters, which suggests that there has been drift. Euan Robson made a point about the ice plant, whose future will depend critically on our having a sustainable fishery throughout Scotland. On the point that Euan Robson and Iain Smith made about the sprat fishery, I am prepared to look at the scientific advice that was mentioned, but the difficulty is that that scientific advice is not shared in relation to the impact that herring could have on that fishery.
I was grateful that Richard Baker made a constructive contribution. It was just as well that he did so, because Jamie McGrigor's was quite the most outrageous speech that we heard. It is just not true to state that it is all about fishermen and the fishing industry, while ignoring the fish in the sea. Jamie McGrigor cannot do that; he has to accept that the major problem for our white-fish industry is the state of the cod stock. To ignore that is to be irresponsible.
Rob Gibson talked about whether the science on monkfish was poor. The truth of the matter is that it is poor, as we can see if we look over the long range of the science that is available. However, it has been greatly augmented by the recent work that was partly funded and hugely supported by the Scottish fishing industry. Based on that information, which was given to Europe and, more importantly, to the scientists, we can tell people that, although the long-run information is poor, we have now supplied evidence from over the past few years that greatly supports a quota increase, which is what we are advocating in this round.
I was grateful for the contribution from Jim Wallace, who drew on his long experience of debates on the talks since December 1983. I may be the longest-serving fishing minister, but from 1983 to 2006—well, that does not even bear thinking about from my point of view. He was right to say that many of the issues are pre-empted not just by EU-Norway negotiations but by intercoastal arrangements. Although ministers intervened to make the matter of the cod reduction clear to the negotiating team, Jim Wallace was also right to say that there must be improvements, and not just in the intercoastal arrangements or in the EU-Norway negotiations, as I have made clear to the chamber. I accept that there is a real need for us to improve on the Rockall haddock quota. Maureen Macmillan, in another constructive contribution, remarked on the critical role that the Sea Fish Industry Authority has played, and I welcome her comments.
I turn to the major contributions made in the opening and closing speeches by the SNP, the Conservatives and the Greens. Mark Ruskell was absolutely right to mention bycatch. I think that there is a difficulty, and I have not come forward with a bycatch quota quite simply because it is very difficult indeed to reconcile the bycatch issue with that of relative stability. On closed areas, he will be aware that the windsock area has been closed for some time. Regrettably, the scientific advice as to whether that forms the basis of a sensible closure is very mixed indeed. Agreement has been reached on the Rockall bank and the cold-water corals. We in Scotland supported the EU's moves, and I understand that the closure will take place very early in the new year. That is all helpful.
I say to Eleanor Scott that she is right—I am grateful to her for so eloquently defining, for Jamie McGrigor's benefit, the balance between sustainable fisheries and what we are trying to achieve. We continue to develop technical measures and will continue to press for more progress on discards.
Much of the Conservative contribution to the debate was based entirely on the withdrawal of this country from the CFP. What a pity it is that both Ted Brocklebank and Alex Johnstone took so much time to read the previous Conservative manifesto. No doubt, that is what it said, but the Conservatives are now led by the author of that manifesto, which means, of course, that nothing that was in it now holds good.
I draw Alex Johnstone and Ted Brocklebank's attention to an exchange of correspondence between Struan Stevenson, who proclaims himself an advocate of fisheries reform and total withdrawal from the CFP, and David Cameron. When Struan Stevenson heard that the position might have altered, he wrote to David Cameron for clarification. David Cameron's response referred to William Hague's speech, which criticised the CFP
"and confirmed that we will be looking to negotiate new arrangements that will increase local and national control of fisheries".
However, it made no mention at all of withdrawal from the CFP.
I say to the minister now, because he would not allow me in earlier, that I did not read and know nothing of the article in The Herald to which he referred, nor do I know anything about the response from Bertie Armstrong. What I do know is that Bertie Armstrong gave me a pile of points that I raised with the minister.
On the correspondence between Struan Stevenson and David Cameron, I draw the minister's attention to the fact that Bill Wiggin, the Conservative fisheries spokesman, said that he totally associated himself with our aspirations to retrieve local and national control of fisheries. The Conservative policy group is still deciding what its policy will be, and we will make our contribution to those negotiations.
We can safely record that that was the longest intervention. It proved beyond a shadow of doubt not only that Ted Brocklebank does not know what he is talking about, but that he does not even know what the Conservative party's policy is about.
I finally turn to the Scottish National Party, but only for a moment. I say to Richard Lochhead that to go on and on about Scotland being particularly picked on is to ignore the fact that our fishery and its position as a mixed fishery makes it almost unique in the North sea. He asked what we do about figures for other fisheries and talked about the Faroese fishery. The Faroese may be managing their fisheries very well, as Ted Brocklebank said, but their own advisers are recommending that they reduce their quota in the cod fishery by 30 per cent this year.
Will the minister give way?
No. Mr Brocklebank's last intervention was far too long to allow me to take another.
The Norwegians are having the same difficulties. They are being faced with zero catches on cod and with no coastal catches, and in the Arctic they are being called on to make a 25 per cent reduction. This is not about the scientists picking on Scotland; the scientific advice is broad.
Richard Lochhead also referred to the European Commission's proposal for a 25 per cent cut as its opening figure, but we should remember that ICES is talking about zero. Let us be clear that we are trying to negotiate a position that takes more account of the economic factors.
No. Mr Finnie is in his last minute.
Mr Finnie, you have 30 seconds. You can either give it to Mr Lochhead or finish.
Well—[Laughter.]
I thank the minister very much for his final 30 seconds. We wish him the best of luck in a week's time at what will be, for one reason or another, no doubt the final time that he makes representations for Scotland at the fishing talks.
The minister will recall that he called the deal that was dished out to Scotland, which led to half of our white-fish fleet being scrapped, "pernicious". Does that not vindicate the SNP's concerns about having 25 per cent of Europe's fishing waters, but absolutely no say over their future?
I will give you a minute to deal with that, Mr Finnie.
I remind Richard Lochhead that this is a closing ministerial speech, not a resignation speech. He might want to contemplate that.
Let us be clear that the way in which the European Commission operates means that Scotland has a say. It is quite clear that out of the many and several occasions on which I have been at negotiations in Europe, there has been none on which it has not been me who has put forward Scotland's case and who has led on the Scottish interests or on which I have not been at bilaterals and quadrilaterals with the commissioner and other member states. As the minister responsible, I conduct the negotiations on behalf of Scotland. Mr Lochhead has a highly ill-informed view of how those negotiations take place and of Scotland's ability to have its points made to the Commission.
On the decimation of the fleet, I repeat that the experts who have examined the way in which we operate our white-fish fishery now all proclaim that our fleet is operating sustainably. That is what Mr Lochhead, the Government and the Conservative party should aspire to: sustainability is the objective. The reductions in the fleet better balance the fishing opportunities and the catching effort, as Eleanor Scott explained more eloquently than I am able to in response to Jamie McGrigor's earlier point.
I am clear that although there are significant difficulties, which will remain for as long as the cod stocks are under threat, the proposition that we have advanced in relation to the white-fish fleet and the pelagic fleet—on which successes have already been achieved—our stance on nephrops and, indeed, our wish to balance the fishing opportunities and the science represent the correct approach and the one that I will pursue in Brussels next week.