Fisheries
The next item of business is a statement by Richard Lochhead on fisheries. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions.
I told Parliament last November when we debated our approach to the autumn negotiations that Scotland can rest assured that the Government will always treat our fishing industry as a major priority. With a Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment who represents the fishing communities of Moray and with a First Minister who has represented Scotland's most fishing-dependent constituency for more than 20 years, no one should have been too surprised.
When the Government came to power, I made it clear that we would bring a fresh approach for Scotland's fishing industry and fishing communities. So today, as evidence of that fresh approach and of the importance that we attach to fisheries, I make this statement on the outcome of the autumn fisheries negotiations, which are crucial to the livelihoods of Scotland's fishing communities and to Scotland's marine environment. I understand that today is the first time a statement has been made to Parliament after the negotiations, giving members an account of what has been agreed. I will range more widely than the December fisheries council—important though it is—and I will report on the other negotiations that take place over the autumn, such as the important negotiations between the European Union and Norway, in which so many key decisions are taken.
Before I go any further, however, I pay tribute to the work of the Scottish fishing industry and to the environmental non-governmental organisations that contribute so much to the development of our fisheries policies—I am grateful for the wise counsel that they gave me last autumn. Above all, I am grateful to them for the deep sense of responsibility that they have demonstrated and continue to demonstrate. I also pay tribute to the Government officials who fought hard to secure a good deal for Scotland. That sense of co-operation and partnership has allowed Scotland to grasp the initiative to deliver groundbreaking policy developments that are profoundly influencing the debate, both within the United Kingdom and Europe. Those policy developments position us in a leadership role for the future. I am proud to report that team Scotland came together magnificently this autumn, and I am grateful to all those who played a part.
In the November debate on sea fisheries, I said that the Government was going into the autumn negotiations with two overarching aims. The first was to secure rewards for Scotland's fishermen, who have made many sacrifices and gone to great effort to conserve our fish stocks, and to secure fishing opportunities that would ensure the fleet's continuing profitability and allow it to plan for the future. The second aim was to secure a deal that promotes sustainability. I am pleased to report to Parliament today that we achieved both those aims.
I will outline the key achievement of the autumn negotiations, which is the historic agreement that provides unprecedented flexibility to run our own days-at-sea scheme. That is a landmark breakthrough. It is the first time since the inception of the common fisheries policy in 1983 that such significant management control has been passed back to Scotland from Brussels. We are already beginning to loosen the shackles of the CFP. One day soon we hope to shake ourselves free. The new agreement allows us to establish what we will call the conservation credits scheme. It will give us the flexibility to reward our fishermen with additional days at sea if they can demonstrate that they are signed up to initiatives that will have a positive impact on conservation of fragile fish stocks. The measures could include trialling and implementing new gear types to increase selectivity and to reduce the level of discards, as well as building on the innovative real-time closure schemes on which Scotland led last autumn.
In that connection, I am delighted to report today that the first real-time closure of a cod spawning ground was triggered at the weekend. That provides concrete evidence of the commitment Scotland is showing to protecting North Sea cod stocks. We are working closely with the industry and fishermen on this and we greatly value their co-operation. A successful scheme in Scotland will lead to its being adopted more widely throughout Europe.
The deal that was secured at the December fisheries council also included significant progress with respect to headline cuts in days at sea. For the west coast nephrops fleet, the cut was reduced from 25 per cent to 10 per cent, while white-fish fleets can avoid cuts altogether by operating under our existing system of automatic licence suspensions and/or in the west of Scotland, by fishing beyond the French line. The significant point is that headline cuts in days at sea will no longer be relevant to Scotland because our conservation credits scheme allows us to work altogether outside the Brussels-centred days-at-sea regime.
The concept of the conservation credits scheme was made in, and delivered by, Scotland. It was a hard-won achievement at the December council. It allows us for the first time to work together to devise and implement measures that are tailored to the particular circumstances that are encountered day to day by our fishermen at sea.
Members should not just take my word for it; here are some comments from others. Mike Park of the Scottish White Fish Producers Association said:
"This deal marks a new era for Scots fishermen. This is our opportunity to show that we are a responsible industry that wants to build a sustainable future for our seas."
Bertie Armstrong of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation said:
"One of our key aims was for Scotland to gain influence over the administration of a separate effort management scheme that will provide flexibility. This has been achieved and will hopefully pave the way for more effective fisheries management in the future."
WWF Scotland spoke of
"The greater power Scotland will have over fisheries management".
However, I make it clear that the deal that we secured from Brussels, and our conservation credits scheme, will be no easy option. The deal brings with it real responsibility—Scotland must now deliver and show the rest of Europe that we can achieve and maintain sustainable stocks—not least, of course, sustainable North Sea cod stocks. Many people will be watching how we deliver with those new freedoms. We must grasp the opportunity to demonstrate that our way is better. The issue is not about increasing effort regardless of the impact on fish stocks; it is about showing that we can reduce mortality and discards through other means than Brussels's tired old recipe of blunt cuts in days at sea. Scotland has won the major prize of securing more responsibility for what we do, but with that prize comes the responsibility to show that we are up to the challenge. I am confident that we will rise to that challenge and I believe that, together, we can deliver.
To make progress on the initiative, we have already convened a steering group that comprises representatives of the industry and of conservation and scientific interests. We are making good progress towards having the first stages of the scheme up and running by 1 February. The full involvement of the steering group and the fleet is absolutely essential to ensuring that we design a scheme that is good for conservation of our fish stocks, good for our marine environment and good for the fishing industry.
The autumn negotiations covered many more issues than just days at sea. The total allowable catches and quotas are vital to Scotland's fishing communities and to the sustainability of our stocks. I was particularly pleased with the increase of 11 per cent in the North Sea cod quota in the EU-Norway negotiations, which is the first increase in the quota for 10 years and is long-awaited tangible evidence that the tide is finally beginning to turn. On other important North Sea stocks, I was pleased with the 8 per cent increase in the megrim TAC, given the high value of that stock and its importance to the Shetland fleet. On North Sea whiting, the original scientific advice was for an 80 per cent cut in the TAC, so the final 17 per cent cut represents a significant achievement and secures important fishing opportunities for the white-fish sector.
We also successfully resisted a European Commission attempt to push through draconian mandatory gear measures that could have had a serious impact on our nephrops fleet. On North Sea haddock, the combination of invoking Hague preferences and securing a substantial quota transfer from Norway meant that we restricted the reduction in the quota to 13 per cent. Even with that cut, the haddock quota for 2008 will be greater than the amount that was landed in 2007.
On North Sea herring, the scientific advice was particularly gloomy and painful decisions had to be taken. I was disappointed that the unanimous recommendation of the pelagic regional advisory council for a 35 per cent cut in the quota was not implemented in the EU-Norway negotiations, although we must keep a sense of perspective because mackerel still dominates pelagic returns and the 18 per cent increase in the Atlanto-Scandian herring quota is to be warmly welcomed. However, I acknowledge that the pelagic sector faces real challenges in 2008. I plan to meet the sector shortly to discuss how we can offer support to the industry which, through the employment that it provides in the processing sector, is the life-blood of many of our fishing communities. A key priority for 2008 is to prepare for the vital pelagic negotiations in the year ahead, particularly on blue whiting and on improving the way in which our fishermen can contribute their knowledge to the scientific assessment of the mackerel stock.
Turning to the west coast, although disappointing decisions were made on cod and haddock at the December council, the decision to increase by 50 per cent the 2008 TAC for Rockall haddock was particularly satisfactory, as that is a vital safety-valve stock that offers some of the sector significant fishing opportunities away from the North Sea. There was also a satisfactory decision on west of Scotland herring. The scientific advice was for a 56 per cent cut in the TAC, which would have had a serious impact on parts of the fleet, but a 20 per cent cut was achieved thanks to the hard work of the Scottish Pelagic Fishermen's Association, which led on the development of a revised management plan for the stock. Without the work of the association, we simply would not have achieved that satisfactory outcome, so I pay tribute to its leadership.
I also pay tribute to what I earlier called team Scotland. The meeting was my first December council as Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment, even if it was anything but my first attendance at the council. The hard-won successes were a direct result of the industry and Government working together as team Scotland.
I also had a good working relationship with my ministerial colleagues in Belfast, Cardiff and London, both in the run-up to the council and in Brussels itself. We worked very well together at times and, although Scotland was never afraid to take a robust stance where required, it was a co-operative relationship.
I believe that this Government's pressure on London to improve the decision-making processes paid dividends. We had crisper, more transparent processes in place as a result of this Government's pressure. Quite simply, we got a better deal as a result. However, it is also clear that the wider negotiating situation needs to be improved. The Brussels negotiating processes are tortuous: 25 Commission officials manning seven computers in a small room working through the night to come up with compromises on 136 fishery stocks for a score of member states is no way to do business and no way to decide the future of our fishing communities.
The December council brought home to me the strength of our argument that we should lead the negotiations. It brought home to me how much more we could achieve if we had greater influence. Nations that are the same size as Scotland—or which are even smaller, such as Estonia and Malta—sit either side of the United Kingdom in the Council chamber. When I see them taking their place at the top table of European negotiations, I fail to understand why anyone could say that Scotland, with so much of Europe's fishing waters off its shores, should be denied its rightful place alongside them.
Turning to the year ahead, it is clear that 2008 will be a year of many challenges. Tough decisions lie ahead of us in driving down cod mortality, in reducing discard rates, in implementing our conservation credits scheme and in rising to the challenges that face the pelagic sector. However, I am confident that the co-operation and mutual respect between the Government and fisheries stakeholders that has developed in recent months will continue to bear fruit. I am confident that we in Scotland can rise to the challenges that we face and that we will continue to demonstrate leadership for the whole of Europe.
However, let us be clear that 2008 also brings many opportunities. Next week sees the inaugural meeting of the Scottish fisheries council, which will set the framework within which the sector as a whole can advise me on the best way forward for Scotland. Next week also sees the first meeting of the sustainable seas task force, which will consider marine legislation that can balance the competing interests of users and protect our seas at the same time.
In 2008, I will take forward our vital work on the future of fisheries management. That work will explore more democratic and suitable alternatives to the discredited common fisheries policy. Also in 2008, we must build on our new approach to inshore management. Inshore fisheries group pilots will be established and new strategies will be developed to deliver more benefit from non-quota stocks such as crabs, lobsters and scallops. I also want to see licensing and quota management arrangements in place that are properly tailored to Scotland's circumstances, explicitly recognising the importance of fishing to Scotland while providing stability for the future.
Almost 50 per cent of Scotland's key fisheries by value are embarking on the journey towards Marine Stewardship Council accreditation—the vital gold standard. I look forward to great progress being made this year towards that important goal. I am sure that we all recognise that sustainability is increasingly the key to the marketplace. We must grasp the challenges as they arise in 2008 and we must continue to demonstrate leadership to the rest of Europe.
Members may remember that the debate on sea fisheries in November was attended by 10 aspiring skippers who are currently training at Banff and Buchan College in Fraserburgh. I had the pleasure of meeting them after the debate and was delighted to hear of their enthusiasm for the sector and their optimism for the future. I said in the debate that the Government has the responsibility of ensuring that those young men can join a sector that has a bright future. I believe that the hard-won deals that were secured in the autumn negotiations will help to lay the foundations for a brighter future for those young aspiring skippers, for our industry, and for our marine environment.
Scotland today stands at the forefront of a new era of sustainable fisheries. It is clear to me that Scotland punches above its weight and that we should take pride in the leadership that has been shown by the Scottish fleet. We are surrounded by a priceless marine environment that gives us some of the most productive fishing waters in the world. Our waters produce a primary product that is in world-wide demand, of which we should be proud. Yesterday, I launched the discussion period for the first-ever national food policy for Scotland. Our fishing communities will play a central role in that.
I firmly believe that the Scottish industry is sailing into calmer waters after too many years of pain and instability, even if there always remains a sense that, as long as we are in the CFP, we have to prepare for new storms around the corner. However, I am confident that we can deliver the greater certainty, optimism and hope that we promised our fishing communities. In the course of 2008, we will demonstrate to the rest of Europe not only that Scotland is committed to the goal of sustainable, profitable and well-managed fisheries but that Scotland now has the leadership and the ability finally to make that goal a reality.
The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in his statement. Around 30 minutes are allowed for questions, after which we will move on to the next item of business. I would be grateful if all those who wish to ask questions would press their request-to-speak buttons now.
I very much welcome the cabinet secretary's statement. I also welcome the presence of Jonathan Shaw, the UK fisheries minister, and Bertie Armstrong, who are in the public gallery today.
The chamber will be struck by the transformation of the cabinet secretary who, during his eight years of doom and gloom, opposed every one of the tough measures that we on the Labour benches supported, which have delivered the beginnings of a recovery in the North Sea and enabled Jonathan Shaw to negotiate an outcome that the fishing industry could not have dreamed of a few years ago.
I echo the cabinet secretary's tribute to the fishing industry, the environmental NGOs and the scientists for their sterling work in helping to deliver more sustainable fishing stocks. However, at the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, the cabinet secretary was unable to identify the specific differences in his negotiating position from the UK line. Given his boast in the chamber today that he could have achieved so much more, will the cabinet secretary now outline to us precisely what those differences would have been and how he would have ensured a better outcome in practice than we had in December?
One of the reasons why the doom and gloom in Scotland's fishing industry is evaporating is because we now have an SNP Government that is fighting for our fishing communities with lots of results, as we saw just a few weeks ago in Brussels.
I say to Sarah Boyack that it is pretty churlish when the Scottish Government comes back with a deal that has been described as "historic" by all commentators and all sections of the industry—
By you.
I have lots of quotes that I could give Mike Rumbles that prove the comments are not from the Scottish Government. As spokesperson for the Opposition, he gives zero credit to the Scottish Government and all the credit elsewhere, which is rather churlish.
Sarah Boyack asks how Scotland would have done better had we taken the lead in the negotiations or had an independent seat at the top table. At the moment, we are in the ludicrous situation in which we have 70 per cent of the UK's fishing industry, yet our efforts to influence the decisions that affect thousands of livelihoods in Scotland are compromised and diluted by going to the UK Government then to Europe among representatives of 27 member states who sit around the table. Surely if we had our own voice or could lead for the UK in the negotiations, we would be in a more powerful position to have much better, longer-term policies for Scotland's fishing communities. I do not see Malta or Estonia, who sit alongside the UK, asking to leave the table because they feel that they have no influence.
Sarah Boyack started her question by welcoming in part what I said in my statement. We have a genuine opportunity to take a fresh approach to how we manage our stocks in Scottish waters. That is largely down to the fact that we have wrested some control back from Brussels in respect of how we manage our fishing efforts.
I genuinely hope that we can all work together; there is a huge opportunity to do so. Fishermen from every sector in every part of the country are up for that. It is absolutely vital that political parties and members of Parliament all stand together and help those fishermen to move towards prosperity.
I begin by welcoming the cabinet secretary's statement and thank him for the advance copy of it. I also record the Scottish Conservatives' appreciation of the contributions that were made this autumn by the fishing organisations, the scientific groups and NGOs, as well as by our civil servants.
We welcome the conservation credits scheme of which the minister spoke earlier. It is a first and much-needed step in returning our waters to national and local control. I further welcome the first real-time closure—a happy response to my recent question on the subject.
The cabinet secretary noted the reduction in the proposed cut in west coast prawn fisheries from 25 to 10 per cent, which I welcome, but he must be aware of the dangerously low levels of other key species in the Firth of Clyde and elsewhere. Is he therefore able to tell Parliament about his specific proposals for restoring west coast stocks generally, and Firth of Clyde stocks in particular?
The cabinet secretary also noted that "draconian mandatory gear measures" were resisted. Will he tell us his plans to encourage greater use of selective gear, which will be essential if he and the fishing industry are serious about reducing the amount of discards and delivering truly sustainable fishing stocks?
Finally, in paragraph 39 of his statement, the cabinet secretary commits to exploring "democratic alternatives" to the CFP. Is he able to give us an early indication of what those alternatives might be? What discussions has he had, or will he have, with his UK and EU counterparts to achieve that end?
I thank John Scott for his opening remarks and his questions. We introduced the first real-time closure because I wanted to ensure that I gave a positive response to his parliamentary question.
As the scientific advice that we have received—and that we have to take into account—makes clear, many challenges face us on the west coast of Scotland. We have secured an increase in the Rockall haddock quota, which should help much of the west coast fleet. As for the nephrops—or langoustines, as we are calling them now—on which the west coast fleet is also heavily dependent, that quota was not up for negotiation in the 2007 council, but is up for negotiation this year. That stock is being fished sustainably and is continuing to sustain the west coast fleet.
On encouraging the use of selective gear, that issue is linked directly to the conservation credits scheme. Fleets that adopt new technical measures such as better selective gear, or which sign up to real-time closures, will get more days at sea. Of course, different fleets in different parts of Scotland will find different measures more relevant and therefore more attractive to their fishery, but that will be a key approach to encouraging the use of selective gear.
As for finding an alternative to the CFP, we will this year appoint an expert panel to find the best fisheries management regime for Scotland's unique fishing stocks and marine environments and our fishing communities. Instead of taking the top-down approach that has been taken by Brussels for the past 30 years, we will work back from there. That is what should be done and that is how we will take this matter forward.
Last year, the minister set out 10 aims that he wished to achieve at the fishing talks, among which was the aim to achieve increases in quota. He has mentioned the three increases that were agreed at the talks, but has he mentioned the 11 cuts that were also made? He wanted increases in days at sea but, as of this moment, no such increases have been agreed. He also wanted a phased reduction in industrial fishing, but there has been no such reduction. Moreover, there has been no mention of attempts to end the practice of discarding healthy fish at sea. Finally, he demanded that he lead the UK's delegation at the talks. Evidently, that did not happen.
I am fairly sure that he does not, but does the minister agree with me that, unfortunately, by the standards that he set himself, the negotiations cannot in any way be described as a successful outcome for his 10-point plan for Scotland?
It strikes me that there is an enormous gulf between Mike Rumbles and the real world outside the Parliament. No doubt he spent a lot of time on his way to the chamber thinking about how he could attack the Government over the outcome of the December negotiations. Even his own local newspaper, The Press and Journal, which he often quotes in the chamber, said in an editorial that was published following the outcome of the talks:
"For the first time in recent memory, everybody seemed reasonably happy in general, apart from a few issues here and there."
Moreover, an editorial in The Herald said:
"For once the European fisheries negotiations have produced a genuine breakthrough."
That view is reflected throughout the industry and among all the commentators in Scotland. [Interruption.]
Order, Mr Rumbles.
As I said, there is a huge gulf between Mike Rumbles and the real world.
If I had totally ignored the scientific advice with regard to the stocks on which quotas were cut—cuts, I should add, that were often supported by the industry—Mike Rumbles would have been the first member to attack us in the chamber for doing so. I ask him to put the deal into perspective. We have secured an increase in many vital stocks. For example, we have secured an 11 per cent increase in North Sea cod—the first increase in a decade.
I am confident that we met many of our priorities in the December talks. Perhaps if we had our own voice and more influence, we would achieve all of them.
We come to questions from back benchers. I would be grateful if members could bear in mind the fact that this is a time for questions, not speeches.
I will stick with cod. I am conscious that cod mortality is falling, but it is still too high. That drives Commission thinking on a range of policy issues. What plans does the Government have to tackle the vital issue of cod mortality in 2008?
Nigel Don's question goes to the heart of many of the issues that were discussed at the December council. We now have the ability to manage fishing effort in our own waters and to adapt it to Scottish circumstances. Key to that will be the conservation credits scheme, which represents the way forward on reducing cod mortality and increasing cod stocks. Cod stocks are going in the right direction and if some of the measures that we are implementing now had been put in place in Scotland's waters a decade ago, they would be in an even better state. [Interruption.]
Order.
The real-time closures will be aimed largely at protecting juvenile cod stocks in cod spawning grounds. Those new and innovative measures were not promoted by previous Scottish Administrations or by the UK Government. The initiatives that this Government is promoting will bear fruit.
The west coast has led cod conservation measures through large all-area closures of mobile fishing methods for the past five years. As the minister will know, the windsock closure covers an area that is about 80 miles long, which runs from the north of the Butt of Lewis towards Orkney.
When in the run-up to the next negotiations can we expect a report to ascertain the benefits of the windsock closure? I would hope that such a report would allow us to consider whether the current all-year closure can be relaxed and we can move to a seasonal closure during the cod spawning season.
That is a good question. We must balance the benefits or otherwise of permanently closing areas against the use of technical measures, seasonal closures and so on. Deciding which measure to use is an important fisheries management dilemma.
In the review of fisheries management in Scotland's waters, we are looking at the success or otherwise of all such measures, so the windsock closure will be considered as part of that process. I am happy to correspond with the member on that point.
Scottish langoustines, as they have now been officially renamed, are in huge demand across the world. What does the Government intend to do for Scotland's nephrops fleet, which is so crucial to many of our communities, particularly on the west coast? In relation to the west coast fleet, will he comment further on the increase in the Rockall haddock quota?
I hope that the 50 per cent increase in the Rockall haddock TAC will offset some of the more painful cuts that had to be imposed on the fishing of other stocks as a result of scientific evidence. That increase is important, because it should help to provide a reasonable income for the crews of vessels that would otherwise stand to lose income.
As Alasdair Allan says, the most important fishery on the west coast and in his constituency is the nephrops and shellfish fishery. The science on the nephrops stock will be reviewed in the run-up to this year's negotiations. If we are to support the nephrops fleet, it is vital that we have accurate science that allows us to make our case and to ensure that the sustainable fishing of that stock and the good volume of quota that Scotland has for it continue from 2008 into 2009.
We produce world-class food in Scotland and our langoustines, which command a premium in international markets, are near the top of the list of our products. That will be taken into account as part of Scotland's first national food policy.
How does the cabinet secretary expect that the new agreement will affect the fish-processing sector? Does he recognise that the recent negotiations show that reform of the CFP, rather than withdrawal from it, is the way forward, particularly when his ministerial colleagues admit in written answers that membership of the CFP is a requirement of membership of the EU?
Thankfully, given the vital role that they play in the member's constituency and elsewhere in Scotland, fish processors have benefited from the increase in fish prices over the past year or two. Although that is helping the viability of many fish processors, the cuts mean that they will face some challenges.
I am thankful for the increase in the Rockall haddock quota and for the fact that the mackerel quota, which represents the vast majority of the pelagic quota, received only a 9 per cent cut—that is within the existing management plan—and I hope that the supply of fish landed in Scotland, as opposed to imported from elsewhere, will continue to flow to fish processors.
On the common fisheries policy, Scotland has major fishing interests. If we had more control over the ability of our fishermen to fish waters sustainably and over the overall activity that takes place, our fishermen would have a more sustainable fishery. We will work tooth and nail in the current regime to get the best possible deal for Scotland and to do what we can to protect thousands of jobs.
I thank the cabinet secretary for providing an advance copy of his statement, in which he says:
"the key achievement of the autumn negotiations"
is
"the historic agreement that provides unprecedented flexibility to run our own days-at-sea scheme."
Will he be able to use that flexibility to return the 28 days at sea per year that were taken away in error from the west coast prawn fishermen in 2006?
I raised the matter with the cabinet secretary on behalf of the Clyde Fishermen's Association, and in his reply to me of 10 January, for which I thank him, he said:
"my officials were given the impression that Commission officials accepted an error had been made."
The cabinet secretary also said:
"The UK asked the Commission for copies of the papers showing where these previously unknown west of Scotland thresholds were established, but Commission officials explained that they were agreed verbally".
That was not a satisfactory answer. Will the cabinet secretary assure me that he will fully investigate the scandal?
The issue is important to the Clyde fishermen and to the west coast of Scotland. We devoted a lot of time and effort to negotiating with the European Commission to get the error—as we see it—on the 28 days rectified. The initial indication was that Commission officials acknowledged that perhaps there had been an error, but unfortunately at the December council officials did a volte face and said that there had been no error and that there was justification for the situation continuing. I will be happy to write to the member to follow up those details.
We were disappointed by that approach. Of course, given the number of negotiations that took place during the December council, the Commission refused to dwell on the issue for any length of time. We will continue to revisit the issue. The situation does not look particularly hopeful at this stage, but I hope that the flexibility that we have in relation to the days-at-sea regime in Scotland will enable us to offset potential loss for the fishermen concerned.
We have heard about the importance of fishing to Moray and the west coast, but we have heard nothing about the south coast—our Scottish riviera, with which the Presiding Officer is familiar—or the south-east coast. The cabinet secretary has received representation from Dumfries and Galloway Council on traditional Solway net fishing, which might be under threat from angling interests. What has he done to address the issue?
There is cross-party pressure on the cabinet secretary—even from his own party—to deliver fisheries-dependent area status for Eyemouth and the Berwickshire coast. Can he confirm that he will deliver on that important issue? When will that happen?
My understanding is that there is no threat to the Solway fishery, but I will come back to the member with more detail on that.
On fisheries-dependent area status for the member's communities, as I said last week during question time, I am conscious of the importance of fishing to a number of communities in the south of Scotland. We are taking that into account. We will shortly issue a draft European fisheries fund programme. The member and everyone else will have an opportunity to respond—on that point or on others—to the consultation that will take place before we issue the final programme, which will set out fisheries-dependent area status for communities, by the end of the year.
I express my fervent hope that sustainability outcomes match the cabinet secretary's rhetoric.
Observation will be crucial to monitoring the impact of the conservation credits scheme. The cabinet secretary assured me during a meeting of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee last year that observers would be part of the package that is offered. That is the right road to go down, especially in the context of the real-time closures that have been announced, which are very welcome. How much observer coverage will be delivered next year in Scotland? How will the real-time closures be monitored? In the absence of the European fisheries fund next year, what money will be available to help fishermen pay for selective gear?
I assure Robin Harper that sustainability will be at the heart of our fishing strategy in Scotland. I hope that I have given lots of evidence not only today but previously why that is the case. I cannot give him information at the moment on the number of observers that we will deploy in 2008 because this is only 16 January and the talks on the new deal concluded only two or three weeks ago. We are digesting the outcome and plotting with our steering group how we should implement the conservation credits scheme and how it should be monitored, verified and so on. I know that he takes a keen interest in the observers issue and I will certainly keep him up to date. It was a successful initiative in 2007, so I see no reason why we should not continue it in 2008.
On assistance for selective gear, I am keen that we should find ways in which we can assist the fleet to adopt new selective gear and use technical measures. I hope that that will be possible with existing funds. We will look for routes to provide that assistance. I am keen that Scotland should lead the whole of Europe in the new technical measures that we put in place, including selective gear.
The Government announced last year that it will set up a Scottish fisheries convention and a Scottish fisheries council. In light of the fisheries talks and the associated agreement, will the minister tell Parliament what those bodies will do and when they will meet?
The Scottish sea fisheries council meets for the first time next week, and the convention on the future of Scotland's fishing communities will meet in two or three months' time. We feel that the community dimension of fisheries policy in Scotland needs more attention. I am sure that the Parliament agrees that fisheries policy is about not simply TACs and quotas but the impact that it has on real, living, working communities on our shores. That is why it is important to recognise the community impact, as well as the cultural and social impacts, of decisions that are taken in Brussels. The purpose of the convention on the future of Scotland's fishing communities is to bring together local authority representatives with organisations around Scotland that might not be directly related to fisheries management issues but which have a clear interest in the future of our fishing communities.
As the minister will be aware, historic east coast fishing ports such as Pittenweem no longer have any white-fish alternative—they are totally reliant on nephrops. He will also be aware that a high percentage of the Pittenweem fleet is made up of under-10m and non-sector vessels. What impact will the deal that he struck in December have on the prospects for the new year of places such as Pittenweem?
I hope that the deal has a positive impact on the under-10m sector, as well as on the rest of the industry. We will announce the next tranche of inshore fisheries groups in the next few weeks, and we announced three prior to the new year. The success or otherwise of the inshore fisheries groups will have a bearing on the success of the under-10m sector, to which we are keen to give more of a say. We want to involve it in all kinds of conservation schemes, as well as let it have a say on local fisheries management. There is a bright future for the under-10m sector in Scotland, but it has to be carefully managed. We look forward to negotiating with the sector in the weeks and months ahead.
As the minister knows, the kilowatt-days regime works only if the days go to the white-fish boats that need them and if costs are reduced. Can he assure me that that regime will achieve those two objectives?
Further, will the Government agree the precise criteria for establishing spawning areas with the industry?
On the latter point, I assure Tavish Scott that the industry is at the heart of deciding the rationale for how the real-time closures are operated. We have to remember that as things stand that is a voluntary initiative. If our fishermen wish to get extra days at sea through the conservation credits scheme, they have to sign up to taking part in such initiatives. If they do not take part in such initiatives, they do not get any more days at sea—it is as simple as that.
I totally agree with Tavish Scott on the economic benefit of our new regime for the fleet in Scotland. Many fishermen have said to me that they are not happy with the idea of having to lease days to go to sea when those days are allocated elsewhere and are not being used. I am sure that Tavish Scott has heard that complaint many times in his constituency. We hope that the new regime will offset some of the economic costs involved. If the fishermen sign up to certain schemes, they will get extra days. We hope that that will, in some cases, remove the need for fishermen to lease days elsewhere and that it will save them considerable sums of money.
The practice of discarding fish remains a huge problem for the sustainability of many of our key stocks. We all saw the television pictures of the practice at the end of last year and, during the sea fisheries debate in November, many colleagues expressed their horror at it. What will the Government do in 2008 to ensure that we tackle the level of discards in our key fisheries?
I thank Ian McKee for raising the issue. Many members across the parties take a close interest in that horrific issue, which represents a waste of valuable fish stocks and of a valuable economic resource.
The EU is consulting on a discards reduction plan, and Scotland will have her say in that. Our contribution will comprise many of the initiatives that we have discussed today—the measures that we want to implement in Scottish waters to reduce discards and, at the same time, protect juvenile stocks from being caught. There is a lot happening in that regard. The steering group has been set up and will, we hope, come up with new ideas on how to reduce discards in Scottish waters.
We will also ensure that Scotland's specific circumstances are taken into account in the EU consultation. We have a mixed fishery in Scottish waters and it might not be as simple as some people think to reduce discards. It could, in some cases, mean simply that no fish are caught. We must be careful about how we approach that matter, and we must take those factors into account.
The minister will no doubt be aware that members of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee unanimously agreed an amendment to the budget that would have set aside the money that is currently unallocated within the marine budget line to support the improvements in conservation measures that he and Robin Harper talked about earlier. I am sure that he shares our disappointment that members of the Finance Committee, through the committee's Scottish National Party and Conservative block, have chosen not to support that unanimous amendment. However, the budget remains within his control and, in view of the unanimous opinion of members of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee—which includes members of his party—that there was a significant level of unallocated funds within his budget lines, will he reconsider the committee's amendment and ensure that, working within European state-aid rules, the resources are provided to enable our fishing industry to benefit fully from the deal that Jonathan Shaw negotiated on behalf of team UK in December?
I had hoped that Karen Gillon would give us some credit for the outcome in December. Her point is important, but I must be up front with her and say that I have not had time to digest the committee's views on the use of the budget for such measures. However, I am open to such suggestions. I will not give a commitment on exactly where funding support for new technical measures in Scottish waters will come from, but if we are to pilot some of the new measures in Scottish waters, we must work closely with the industry to ensure that that happens, and I have an open mind as to how we can do that.