Common Fisheries Policy
The next item of business is a statement by Richard Lochhead on the reform of the common fisheries policy. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.
14:40
Yesterday morning at 4.20 am in Luxembourg, European Union ministers finally reached agreement on some of the big issues that will help to determine how our fisheries will be managed in the future. I was there to the bitter end, along with other bleary-eyed ministers and officials. It is certainly not a rational way of reaching decisions that will affect the sustainability of our fisheries and the very future of our fishing industry and our coastal communities over the next decade or so.
We need a new way of doing things and, thankfully, the agreement goes some way towards delivering just that. For the past six years, I have attended fisheries councils and, of all the ministers who have been involved over that time, I think that only my Swedish and Maltese counterparts, who were in Luxembourg yesterday, and I have endured. Perhaps the pace and sleep deprivation have taken their toll on all the others. In reflecting on my experience, I firmly believe that we have an agreement that lays the foundations for the most significant reforms in the history of the common fisheries policy, even if a lot of work and negotiation lie ahead before the new policy becomes law in Europe. I am pleased that the new agreement has been influenced by Scotland’s efforts to change radically European fisheries policy, which I think have been supported by all parties in the Parliament over a long period.
Last week, I set out my top priorities for reform of the CFP. I explained that the current CFP was broken and that the only means of rescuing our fisheries was to empower member states to work together at regional level; that sustainability must be at the heart of everything that we do, as must our stakeholders; and that the obscene waste of discarding, in particular, had to be addressed for the good of all and the credibility of the EU.
Given the starting point of the reform process and the constraints that Scotland faces, Parliament can be satisfied with what Scotland has achieved at Luxembourg. It is important to understand that it is one important step on the long road that lies ahead. Yesterday’s agreement involved member states agreeing a position—not law—to present to the European Parliament.
Failure to have reached agreement would have been a disgrace. In the event, it was a close-run thing—agreement was achieved only by qualified majority and, at times, it looked as though no deal would be secured. That would have meant that reform of the CFP would have been delayed and, no doubt, that it would have been dictated by the Commission and the European Parliament, which would have left member states and our industries facing the unknown. However, in the face of the significant and entrenched views of others, we got a deal and it is one that the people of Scotland can welcome.
Let us be clear. Scotland was negotiating within the boundaries of the diverse views of the other 27 member states, including the United Kingdom Government, with which we also had to negotiate. Reaching a deal involved ironing out priorities that were often conflicting. There are those in Europe who are stuck in the past and who are reluctant to take tough decisions, and there are landlocked member states that have no direct interest in the marine environment, but which still wish to use the negotiations to further their national interests.
I will provide the Parliament with some details of the agreement. I will focus on the two key priorities that dominated the discussions in Luxembourg: regionalisation and discards. As Parliament acknowledged again last week, the current CFP is characterised by centralised micromanagement. We all recognise that we need to change fundamentally how decisions are made in the first place if we are to achieve better outcomes in the years ahead. For instance, real and meaningful regionalisation can help to deliver a tailored discards reduction plan. That is why I have been doing my utmost to promote the decentralisation of the CFP and to empower member states. Devolving decision making to those who are most knowledgeable about particular fisheries and allowing them to develop tailored management measures was my top priority ahead of the discussions.
For as long as we are in the CFP, the role of Brussels should be limited to setting the overall framework and key targets. Within that, member states should have the freedom to manage their fisheries. The agreement delivers a commitment to regionalisation, and within that I am delighted to say that we also achieved a key Scottish priority. We successfully tabled to the UK and the council a Scottish clause to allow member states to take their own measures, in agreement with their partners in a region, without having to continually refer back to the Commission. That clause was accepted. In practice, that should mean that management decisions can be made more quickly and that they can be tailored to local management needs.
An important issue on which regionalisation will enable us to make progress is the scandal of the discarding of good-quality fish. Like many, I want to see an end to discarding, but it is a complex issue that takes many different forms and has many different causes. Understandably, that controversial issue was the key battleground at this week’s council, and in the dead of night it nearly caused the whole deal to break down.
The deal that has been agreed proposes to end discarding in pelagic fisheries by 1 January 2014 and to phase in stock-by-stock transition to discard elimination in mixed white-fish stocks and nephrops between 1 January 2015 and 2018. The provision to land all that you catch is part of a wider discards package. It is a complex package that includes an uplift in quotas to reward fishermen, which is important, and a move from the current land-based quotas to catch quotas—in other words, a focus on what is taken out of the sea, not simply what is landed.
Another big win was a commitment to review the technical conservation fisheries management measures that get in the way of discard elimination, as we all know to our cost. That will be done before a landing obligation kicks in. Again, that is good news for Scotland and the challenges that we face.
The outcome is challenging for our industry, but I believe that it will be deliverable. Scotland has made great strides on discards reduction and I am pleased that the momentum is now set to continue. Let us not forget what we have achieved in Scotland in recent years. Our co-management approach to fisheries is something from which the rest of Europe can learn, and it is doing so.
I draw the Parliament’s attention to two other important elements of the deal. First, taking the science into account, fishing rates must support what is referred to as maximum sustainable yield—a level of mortality of fish stocks that ensures that the stocks are not compromised. Agreement was reached that the necessary exploitation rate will be achieved by 2015 where possible, and by 2020 for all stocks. There is also provision to deal with the complexities of our mixed fisheries.
The second element is on our historic fishing rights. The Commission’s original proposal to establish a mandatory system of transferable fishing rights across Europe has been rejected. We in Scotland fought against the proposal from day one, and I am pleased and relieved that our work has paid off, with only a voluntary scheme now being proposed. I welcome the UK Government’s movement on that issue over the past year or so. Although we would have liked the reference to the issue to be removed from the agreement, the change is still an important victory.
In summary, there has been a significant step forward in the reform debate. I recognise that many, including the Scottish Government, would have preferred a more rapid path to the ending of discards, but I believe that what was achieved was a good result, especially under the circumstances. I reiterate that it is far from being the end of the story. Under the co-decision process, the focus will now move to the European Parliament, which will have its say in the reform negotiations. The processes are complex and extensive negotiations are expected to last well into 2013. We have gained from the round, which I firmly believe has put Scotland on the front foot. We will use that advantage and our growing reputation and profile to drive forward the gains throughout the remainder of the reform process.
The agreement was welcomed by many Scottish voices yesterday and today. I recognise that some might believe that the UK is not being ambitious enough. On the other hand, other voices believe that it is going too far, too fast. However, after presiding over the appalling scandal of discards for more than three decades, ministers have signed up to beginning the elimination of discards from day one of the new CFP, and after years of painful and damaging micromanagement that has been centralised in Brussels, ministers have signed up to meaningful decentralisation.
Although the council agreement is not perfect, it is a big step forward that will help to meet the aspirations of our fishing communities and safeguard our stocks and marine environments. This is an opportunity to reflect before heading back into the fray encouraged—I hope—by the support and recognition of the Scottish Parliament and our stakeholders. There is much still to do, but the agreement is a good and important start for Scotland and maybe—just maybe—we can begin to steer our industry, our fishing communities and our marine environment into calmer waters.
The cabinet secretary will take questions on the issues that were raised in his statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions, after which we must move to the next item of business. It would be helpful if members who wish to ask a question were to press their request-to-speak buttons now.
I thank the cabinet secretary for providing an advance copy of his statement.
It is only a week since we debated reform of the common fisheries policy and I am pleased that the cabinet secretary has returned with a fairly positive report on what has been achieved so far, which demonstrates the value of positive working relationships within the UK and that Scottish fishing interests are the UK’s fishing interests. We went in with a shared agenda on discards, conservation and regionalisation, and that approach has shown results.
There is broad agreement that progress has been made on a lot of key issues, but there is still much detail to be decided that will determine how successful the reform will be. Environmental organisations are concerned that there are no binding targets on discards. While the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation warns against inappropriate regulation, my concern is not so much that the Scottish fishing fleet will not strive to meet the proposed targets but that other member states might take a different view. There must be a level playing field. Will the cabinet secretary comment on how we guarantee that?
Furthermore, the discards target has been set at January 2018. Is it the cabinet secretary’s intention to push for the earlier introduction of a ban? How will he ensure that the timetable for a ban will coincide with the development and introduction of regionalisation and the subsequent multi-annual management plans? Unless those are co-ordinated, I do not feel that they can work. Is the cabinet secretary confident that the earlier ban that he desires and the proposed ban would both respond to the needs of mixed fisheries?
Finally, I note what the cabinet secretary said about empowering member states, but does he agree that that will work in the interests of sustainable fishing only if decisions are taken by regional parties? The next stage is the European Parliament, where the detail and timescales to which the agreement will operate will be decided. What will the Scottish Government do to influence the next round of decision making?
I thank Claire Baker for her questions, and I will attempt to answer as many as I can. I welcome many of her comments, although at times I thought that I was listening to the Conservative spokesperson; I am sure that that was inadvertent on her part.
On other member states, as I said in my statement, it is important that we now have an agreement that, for the first time, involved fishing ministers sitting round the table in Brussels and achieving the two major outcomes to which I referred, on regionalisation and tackling discards. Clearly, the detail of how that will be enforced in each region or across Europe will be hammered out over the coming year or so. I accept that we must pay close attention to that. Ultimately, each fishing minister will be held to account by their Parliament and their people, as we will be in Scotland.
On the timetable for banning discards, because we have a mixed fishery in Scottish waters, that is an unbelievably complex issue. However, we have shown that we can cut discards and we are convinced that, given a few years, we can eliminate discards from our fisheries. We must therefore have a timetable in place, but we cannot make a law simply by writing dates on bits of paper—and at the end of the day, this is about a law. We cannot set unrealistic dates that simply cannot be achieved in a mixed fishery. We need a bit of time. We need to develop the gears, the science and so on before we can get to where we want to be.
We can perhaps be a bit more ambitious than the provisional timescale that was laid out in the agreement yesterday, but we must be careful that we do not get ahead of ourselves and that we have the ability to reduce discards before the dates are set in law.
We want to ensure that the regulations take into account the fact that we have a mixed fishery. We ensured that that was the case with the regulation that aims to achieve maximum sustainable yield by 2015 if possible. We welcome the 2020 date, because that will give us an extra few years. We cannot say that all stocks in a mixed fishery will be at the same level at the same time, because there are interdependent relationships. The 2020 date was a commonsense proposal.
On the timing of regionalisation to ensure that we can have discard bans and that other measures are put in place that are suited to Scottish waters, I think that regionalisation is the big prize. Regionalisation can lead to discard bans, but they cannot lead to regionalisation, so we must get regionalisation in place. That is why having all member states sitting round the table and signing up to such an agreement for the first time in 30 years is a major breakthrough.
Thank you, cabinet secretary. We are tight for time and it is unlikely that I will be able to call every member.
Although I am happy to congratulate the cabinet secretary on his undoubted stamina and ability to stay awake, I begin by doing something that he failed to do: I recognise the highly significant role of Richard Benyon MP and the UK Government, without whose voting power the outcome in Scotland’s interests would not have been achieved.
The Scottish Conservatives recognise and welcome the fact that progress has been made on regionalisation, but on discard bans—something that we all want to see—are the timescales realistic? Given that the cabinet secretary is aware that the pioneering work of Scottish fleets is a work in progress, is the declaration of statutory end points rational? How will he ensure that measures to reduce discards are practical and deliverable by Scottish fishermen in our mixed fisheries? Will the cabinet secretary join me in commending Scotland’s prawn fishermen, who this year have pioneered trawls that can reduce discards by up to 70 per cent? Does he agree that that type of practical approach to fisheries management is what is needed?
I join Jamie McGrigor in congratulating Scotland’s prawn fleets for adopting measures this month that will lead to a reduction in discards of white fish of between 60 and 70 per cent. That is a massive step forward, and a big challenge that the industry is willing to meet. I am sure that we all want to congratulate it on doing that.
That approach shows that we can reduce discards. If we adopt measures today that will reduce discards by 60 to 70 per cent, perhaps there are other measures—indeed, there are other measures—that we can adopt over the next few years to reduce discards by 100 per cent. That is the objective. I know from attending the council yesterday morning that there are a number of member states that would probably prefer not to go down that road. That is why we need to have a timetable in place, and why it is good that we address the discard issue not only in Scottish waters, but across all Europe’s waters.
Will the CFP agreement support the developing Scottish practice of co-operation between fishers and scientists in reducing discards? Will that make the timescale that we adopt in parts of our fisheries realistic? Many of the boats that land fish in ports in my constituency will be fishing in various parts of the Scottish waters, and the effort that will be required to achieve that will be varied.
Yes, I believe that the agreement takes us down that road. Of course, that is why a commitment to meaningful regionalisation is so important, as we have shown in Scotland. Indeed, yesterday morning, others—particularly from the Commission—were stopping me regularly to tell me that they had heard that good things are happening in Scotland. The rest of Europe is talking about Scotland and the co-management process that we have in place. The process means that we have to take really tough decisions, but the measures that the prawn fleet has adopted to tackle discards show that we have a brave industry that is willing to make bold decisions. That takes us down the road of better co-management and more local decision making.
The cabinet secretary said that the Scottish Government would have preferred a more rapid path to the ending of discards. Indeed, in reply to Claire Baker, he said that we could be a bit more ambitious than was agreed at the council yesterday. What date did the Scottish Government propose for the ending of discards and did that proposal attract any support?
There is no doubt that we can settle for 2016. The agreement is 2017 for the phased approach of white fish and nephrops stocks. Clearly, the European Parliament has to have its say and more negotiations have to take place. However, other countries wanted the timetable expedited, even from 2016, to perhaps 2014 or 2015. For the reasons that I have outlined, that could be counterproductive and might not get us to where we want to be.
I welcome the statement and the cabinet secretary’s hard work on the CFP.
The cabinet secretary mentioned regionalisation and the fact that member states may be able to take their own measures, which would give Scotland, for example, more control over our fisheries. Will he provide us with a bit more detail on how that might work and where he hopes to get to in relation to that?
The method of regionalisation that is being proposed, albeit with detail still to be negotiated in the coming months, is that member states will agree measures on a regional, fishery-by-fishery basis. When the member states agree those measures, the Commission will effectively adopt them. That is a far cry from where we are at the moment. Clearly, there is still a big role for the Commission and a common fisheries policy.
I would have preferred to see more radical reform from the negotiations, but we had a point from which we had to start. That might not have been the starting point that I would have liked, but I recognise that it is a big step forward from where we are at the moment and it will lead to better decision making and outcomes for our fishing communities and stocks.
The cabinet secretary said much in his statement about the new powers that member states will have to make decisions on fishing. How does he foresee member states working together in a multilateral way to deliver on those objectives?
A number of regional bodies that advise on fishing policy in Europe are already up and running. Those bodies feel that they are toothless or powerless, and they are, ultimately, just advisory bodies. What we are talking about when we talk about regionalisation are effective decision-making bodies. As long as there is agreement at the regional level, the European Commission will be empowered to adopt what is agreed. That is a much more powerful position for decision makers in each fishery.
In my response to Dave Thompson, I should have mentioned that adoption of the Scottish clause, which we tabled, will mean that national Administrations will be able to propose measures to regional bodies and, if there is agreement on those, to implement them without consistently having to go back to the Commission, which can take months and sometimes years. Again, that should expedite good decision making and give member states more power directly.
I, too, welcome the deal that has been delivered, which is due in considerable part to the fact that our cabinet secretary is one of the most experienced and skilled fisheries ministers in the EU. I pay tribute to the deal that he has managed to deliver.
Looking to the future, could we not deliver even more for our fishing industry if Scotland had her own seat at the top table?
I could, of course, agree with the member’s opening comment as well as the rest of her comments. Of course Scotland would have more influence if we had our own seat at the top table.
I pay tribute to the UK Government, which worked with us on a number of important issues. We tend to win UK Government support when our interests coincide with the interests of the industry elsewhere in the UK. That is fair enough. It is a good thing, and it reflects the current constitutional set-up. It should not, however, distract us from the fact that we could have much more influence and say over the future of fishing policy with our own seat and negotiating machinery as a member state within Europe. At yesterday’s council, I sat and watched with admiration how the Danish Government was able to carry out its role as president in getting European fishing policy to a much more radical place than it has ever been before. That country is, of course, the same size as Scotland.
I agree with the cabinet secretary’s observations and objectives on regionalisation: it is the right approach.
On quotas—because they, rather than discards, are the point—will the cabinet secretary ensure that boats are not hit financially by measures that might sound sensible but which do not work in practice? Does a landing obligation on all boats mean an end to the cod recovery plan?
Finally, on the science, whose science will underpin the announcement that the cabinet secretary made this afternoon? Will it be that of Marine Scotland or of other science bodies? On the concept of science, does he recognise that quite a number of the stocks on which our boats depend have no underpinning science whatsoever?
Tavish Scott raises a number of important points. One really important victory in the negotiations was the fact that we were adamant that, if discard bans are to be put in place in Scottish waters, the result should be more quota for the Scottish fleet when the science backs that. Otherwise, the fish will stay in the sea, even when maximum sustainable yield is achieved and our fishermen could sustainably land some of that fish. If the fish was over quota, it could be landed but then sent for non-human consumption, when it could be commercially landed by the fleet in return for a discard ban. That objective has been secured and is now an important principle of the policy for the future, provided that the European Parliament supports it, which I am sure it will.
Tavish Scott’s question about science is a good one. As I said in my statement, some of the detail is still to be hammered out in the coming months. The regional bodies will have to have scientific advice and, at the moment, that is carried out on a European basis. Marine Scotland is part of that. That might well continue to be the case, but there should be much more leeway for regional bodies to access their own scientific advice. The European funds that are being discussed just now should also be used for better science.
During last week’s debate on reform of the common fisheries policy, I raised the issue of the Shetland box, the retention of which has not been explicitly confirmed by the European Commission in its reform package. Does the minister know whether the Shetland box is to be retained? If it is not, will the minister support its retention?
There has been no decision yet on the future of the Shetland box and that was not one of the key issues discussed at the negotiations. As members can imagine, that was due to the fact that this week’s negotiations were on the general approach to the reform process. Many of the individual measures within the regulations will be negotiated in the future. We have, however, asked the European Commission why the Shetland box was missing from the draft regulations that it published, and we await an answer from the Commission.
I welcome the agreement on regionalisation, the principle of a discards ban and the removal of mandatory tradable fishing rights, which would have benefited those with the biggest pockets. After regionalisation—which I hope will come sooner rather than later—will the Scottish Government commit to the principle of allocating our fishing rights to the boats that can fish most sustainably and selectively, thus rewarding those with the fewest discards?
I understand the sentiment behind the member’s question, but the objective is to reduce discards in the first place. All vessels fishing in Scottish waters will have to adhere to the discards ban and they will all, therefore, fish in conservation-friendly ways by definition. That is the place that we want to get to and I am confident that we can get there. The industry is working on a lot of new measures and will continue to do so over the next couple of years because it is in its interests to have the most sustainable fishery in Europe just as much as it is in the interests of the Parliament and everyone who is involved in the debate.
As the cabinet secretary said in his statement, the Commission’s proposal to attain maximum sustainable yield by 2015 has been watered down by the council, and the maximum sustainable yield target is now applicable “where possible”. How will the cabinet secretary ensure that we work together with our European partners to gather the best scientific advice about our fishing stocks, so that we can fish them as sustainably as possible?
There was a good argument for putting into the agreement yesterday morning the fact that the target should be 2015 “where possible” because we simply cannot achieve by law a 2015 deadline for all the stocks in our mixed fishery. We have more than 30 stocks in the North Sea, for instance, which relate to each other in terms of biology. There is no way that we can make it a law that they should all be in the same place at the same time by 2015. That was recognised many years ago in the Johannesburg agreement, which also set the deadline as 2015 if possible. What we agreed yesterday reflects the international commitment and, as the member says, we have until 2020 to get the science together to ensure even better decisions in the future about what we do to get all stocks to MSY by that date. At the moment, we have good science for only about 40 to 45 per cent of our stocks, and all countries must work together to improve on that.
I, too, strongly welcome the rejection of the proposed mandatory system of transferable fishing rights across Europe and the cabinet secretary’s comments in response to Jamie McGrigor’s question on the nephrops fleet, which is particularly important to the Eyemouth area. Can the cabinet secretary update the chamber on how discussions with Iceland and the Faroe Islands on discards and the impact on pelagic fisheries will move forward?
That is an important point. Here we are, in Europe, talking about the conservation of our key stocks, yet Iceland and the Faroes are behaving irresponsibly. I hope that they will come back to the negotiating table soon in the interest of protecting our mackerel stock. This year, there may be a chance of negotiations earlier than in previous years. The European Commission is looking into that at the moment and we will see how that progresses. We are keen to get those countries back to the table as soon as possible. In the meantime, I hope that they are paying attention to how Europe is getting its act together on other stocks. They should get their act together on the valuable mackerel stock.
Can the cabinet secretary say a little more on how he can ensure that the voice of Scotland’s fish-processing sector, which sustains many valuable onshore jobs, can be heard consistently in the reform talks to ensure that new policies are aligned with that sector and do not threaten the supply chain?
That is another important point. We must remember the interests of the processing sector in the debate. I welcome the declaration—which was agreed yesterday morning as part of the deal—that a European advisory council for the fish-processing sector will be set up. That is a new initiative, which we welcome. In Scotland we have our seafood partnership, the purpose of which is to ensure that the processors are sitting round the same table as the catching sector so that we are much more joined up. Scotland is being held up internationally as an example because our fishing industry is much more joined up than those elsewhere in Europe.