Fisheries Council
The next item of business is a statement by Rhona Brankin, the Deputy Minister for Rural Development, on the fisheries council. As the minister will take questions at the end of the statement, there should be no interventions during it.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to make a statement to Parliament on the outcome of last week's meeting of the fisheries council, which I want to put into context. Although we agree that we face a tough and testing time, fishing is an industry with a real future.
There is no doubt that the discussions about total allowable catches—TACs—were this year among the most difficult ever. We simply cannot ignore the fact that fish stocks are in a very poor state; neither is there a magic solution that will allow us to work towards the recovery of stocks without reducing the amount of fishing effort. Some reduction in TACs was inevitable; indeed, it was essential for the long-term sustainability of the fisheries and the communities dependent on them.
I make no excuses for taking some tough decisions. It is not in the best interests of the fishing industry to put short-term quota gains before long-term sustainability. However, in the light of the scientific assessments and the generally poor uptake of this year's quota, the outcome of the council is not as bad as some would claim. In fact, in keeping with the motion passed earlier this month by the Parliament, we have pressed successfully for a better deal for Scottish fishermen on a number of key stocks. We have done that in a way that will not lead to unsustainable pressure on those stocks in the longer term.
Before I give members some examples of the progress that we have made, I will say a few words about North sea whiting. I was very disappointed with the outcome of that negotiation and I share the fishing industry's frustration. We did everything possible to get the best available deal on whiting. We invoked the Hague preference and argued strongly for a split between the industrial bycatch and the human consumption elements of the TAC that was more favourable to our interests than was recommended in the scientific advice.
Despite a substantial amount of lobbying, which culminated in a direct bilateral discussion with Commissioner Fischler, it was clear that the Commission would not move beyond our Hague preference level. In order to achieve that, and to mitigate the impact of the Hague preference on other member states, the industrial bycatch figure was adjusted and given to the UK, although not to the extent that we would have liked.
Contrary to public perception, the remaining industrial bycatch element has not been allocated to Denmark. Rather, it remains unallocated, which may be helpful in the longer term. Members should be in no doubt that I intend to monitor closely the take-up of the industrial bycatch element. If it looks unlikely that that element will be taken up, I shall certainly seek to have it moved to the human consumption fishery.
I can announce—and am encouraged by—an agreement reached with Denmark to have discussions about the North sea sand eel fishery, including considering the possibility of reducing the present TAC and adjusting the bycatch element. I intend to meet the Danish minister early in the new year.
The end result on whiting in the North sea, however, is a quota for the UK that is more than 6,000 tonnes down on last year. That will result in a loss to the UK industry of around £3.5 million. We understand the fishing industry's disappointment.
It is important to look also at the other side of the negotiating balance sheet. I cite some examples of the negotiating gains that were made by the Executive throughout the TAC-setting process. For North sea haddock, the initial Commission line was to set a TAC of 42,000 tonnes. That would have given the UK a share of just over 25,000 tonnes. In the EU Norway negotiations, we managed to argue the TAC up to 61,000 tonnes and to get a transfer from Norway of more than 6,000 tonnes. The successful invocation of the Hague preference at the council gave the UK an allocation of 41,780 tonnes—more than 16,000 tonnes, or 65 per cent, above what our allocation would have been according to the original Commission proposal. That extra fish is worth £16 million to the Scottish industry, which places the whiting issue in a better context.
The Commission proposed a 20 per cent cut in the TAC of nephrops. We pressed for a rollover TAC on the basis that there was no new scientific advice, but the Commission remained concerned about the level of cod bycatch in the nephrops fisheries. Finally, a 10 per cent cut was agreed, subject to a declaration from the Commission to the effect that, if member states could prove a small cod bycatch, the TAC could be rolled over. We have already undertaken some work to demonstrate that, and the Executive will make all possible efforts to secure an increase in the TAC where that is appropriate. Our success in mitigating the cuts in nephrops TACs will result in fishing opportunities beyond the Commission's proposals, worth £3.5 million in the North sea and £3 million in the west of Scotland.
In pre-council discussions with the industry, progress with nephrops was identified as the industry's major target, and that progress has been achieved. The industry also asked me to seek reduced cuts in west of Scotland haddock, monkfish and herring, and I delivered a better deal on all those. Proposed reductions of 39 per cent for haddock, 25 per cent for monkfish and 27 per cent for herring were successfully opposed. The final outcome was for cuts of 27 per cent for haddock, 20 per cent for monkfish and 13 per cent for herring. That will lead to quota gains of some £2 million on the original proposals.
The Executive has delivered on its promise to get the best available deal for the Scottish industry, and I am content that we have done so in a way that is compatible with the scientific advice on longer-term sustainability. Our initial analysis suggests that, apart from those for North sea cod and whiting and possibly for west of Scotland monkfish, the 2001 catch quotas will be higher than the 2000 quotas. Nevertheless, the Executive understands that these are difficult times for the Scottish industry.
Fisheries are vital to many coastal communities, and the Executive is committed to ensuring that they will be sustainable. We believe that the industry has a sustainable future, but we must overcome the immediate difficulties on the catching side and for the fish processors. It is our intention to work in partnership with the industry and with the other stakeholders to tackle those difficult issues.
I have set up an action group to examine the issues that face the processing sector. That group has met on several occasions and is making good progress. On the catching side, I have agreed to meet the Scottish Fishermen's Federation early in the new year to consider the options for dealing with the impacts of the poor state of fish stocks and the associated quota reductions. The First Minister has expressed his willingness to meet industry representatives to discuss the way forward.
I am also pleased to announce that Scottish Enterprise has agreed to resource an initiative to examine the Scottish fishing industry as a whole. The initiative will be aimed at refocusing the industry and identifying the scope for restructuring that key industry. We will consult further with the industry in due course about what needs to be done. Scottish Enterprise is a key player in the action group for the processing sector, to which I referred earlier.
In summary, the Executive fully appreciates the difficulties that face the industry. We did everything possible at the December council to minimise those difficulties and we have achieved a substantial amount. Nevertheless, more needs to be done. The Executive is committed to ensuring the long-term, sustainable future of the fishing industry and we will do everything in our power—working in partnership with the industry—to turn that vision into reality. We must learn the lessons of the short-term issues that face us, and we must also be prepared to look to the future of the industry and plan accordingly.
I thank the minister for giving the Scottish National Party a copy of her statement in advance.
The fishing industry expected a tough year ahead, but not one quite as tough as is now anticipated, following the Government's failure last week to stand up for our fishermen in Europe. The minister's statement proves that new Labour members are masters of spin. I lost count of the number of times that she used the words success, progress and gains. The reality is that the industry will lose anything between £60 million and £100 million of income as a result of the cuts that were agreed by Rhona Brankin last week. Hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs are now on the line in Scotland's fishing communities.
Our fishing communities have been left to pick up the pieces following the minister's complete failure to win a good deal for Scotland last week. However, I remind members that that is not entirely Rhona Brankin's fault; the First Minister is also responsible. He sacked the former Deputy Minister for Rural Affairs with responsibility for fisheries only weeks before the most important negotiations in decades. At the time, the industry warned the First Minister that that was a foolish action, and that view has been vindicated.
On a point of order. I thought that members were supposed to be asking questions, not making speeches.
You are right, Mr McGrigor. A certain amount of latitude is afforded to the Opposition spokesperson in replying to the statement. However, that reply should be in the form of questions.
Rubbing salt into the wound is the minister's monumental Brussels blunder that will allow 6,000 tonnes of whiting that should be caught and processed by the Scottish industry to be transferred to the Danish industrial fishery. That is a slap in the face for our fishermen, who have adopted conservation measures only to see those young fish hoovered up by the Danish industry.
Why is the Danish industrial fishery being spared the pain that is being inflicted on the Scottish industry, and why did the minister allow Denmark to gain at Scotland's expense? Will the minister speak to the Commission and demand the decommissioning of the Danish industrial fishery or a ban in the interests of conservation?
In the past few days, we have heard enough warm words from the minister. This morning, we are looking for commitments, not just another fudge in the form of another task force that will take months to report. Can the minister give us a commitment that new money will be made available for decommissioning, a temporary tie-up of the fleet and other conservation measures to ensure that the industry is able to cope with the difficulties that lie ahead? Can she tell us whether she has requested more financial aid for the industry from Europe and the UK Treasury?
The industry is asking not for ifs, buts or maybes, but for a clear-cut commitment that the Government will deliver new funding to rescue it from the deal that the minister secured last week.
I remind Richard Lochhead of what he said last week on "Newsnight Scotland". He said that we should accept the fact that there must be short-term pain for a long-term gain in rural communities.
We are confident that the deal that we secured at last week's council was the best possible for the Scottish fishing industry, and I am in no doubt about that. We have held talks with the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and we have said that we must consider the implications of the council. We must also examine the proposals that are coming out of the cod recovery plan, and we have asked the industry to approach us with suggestions for the best way forward in future.
I have said it before and I say it again: we rule nothing out and we rule nothing in. I have announced that Scottish Enterprise will set up an initiative to review the fishing industry, and we are already reviewing the fish processing sector. One of the fishermen's organisations has said that there is too much doom and gloom concerning the fishing industry. We believe that there is a future for the fishing industry. Let us not talk that industry down.
I thank the minister for her statement but regret that I have to say that the Conservative party is desperately disappointed for Scottish fishermen. Can she explain why every bottom-trawl fishery has had to take cuts except for the industrial fisheries? Why did not she insist on a cut of at least 25 per cent in the catch of the industrial fishing industry, which is the one that is the most harmful to the conservation of stocks, especially the stocks of the Norway pout fish?
Surely the minister agrees that it would have been better for our desperate processors to have had the whiting to process rather than having it end up as fish meal for pigs in Denmark. What part did the French presidency of the EU play in reaching a settlement on whiting? How many jobs will the industry lose as a result of the cuts? Why is there any cut in the prawn quota when the scientific evidence on the stock has remained unchanged?
Why did the minister not push other countries to use conservation measures to address the long-term problem? Why does she not mention any decommissioning programme or any socio-economic help for fishermen and their families to protect the core of the Scottish fishing fleet? Will she plan for a subsidised lay-off for new vessels and plan a set-aside scheme for fishermen similar to that which operates in relation to Scotland's farmers? Will she address those issues immediately?
As I said in my speech—
Statement.
I thank Mr Salmond. As I said in my statement, we have said that we will be talking to the Danes as a matter of urgency about industrial fishing. We have concerns about that. As I said to Mr Lochhead, it is too early to say how many jobs will be involved. I have said to the fishing industry that we must sit down and consider the implications of the December council and the implications of any cod recovery plan. Many loose figures have been bandied about and I do not want to bandy any more.
We have secured the best possible deal on prawns and have got the cut in that quota down to 10 per cent. The Commission has said that if we can prove scientifically that there is a lower cod bycatch, we will be able to roll over the TAC. We will work hard to reach that point.
I will repeat what I have already said on decommissioning. At this stage, we do not rule anything out and we do not rule anything in. We will seek the best possible sustainable future for the Scottish fishing industry.
I was interested to hear the minister say that, apart from the quotas for North sea cod and whiting, the 2001 quotas that she negotiated will be higher than the 2000 catches. Given that fact, it is amazing that we hear doom and gloom in the chamber today.
Does the minister agree that this is the most opportune moment to radically review the structure of the fisheries operations through Scottish Enterprise? I understand that it is up to individual member states to submit proposals for the restructuring of the fishing fleet. Will the minister radically review the situation and present proposals that come out of that review, especially in relation to compensation, to the European Commission?
I am glad that we have heard some recognition of the significant achievements that we made at that council. The quotas that we achieved on the west coast are higher than the amount of fish that were caught last year.
On restructuring, I agree that we should take this opportunity to examine carefully the Scottish fishing industry. The Scottish Fishermen's Federation, to which I spoke in Aberdeen on Monday, agrees with that view. We have to look to the future. The scientific advice is accepted by everyone. The fishermen have not caught their quota for cod for this year. We have an opportunity to examine the industry and its future. We need to have discussions about restructuring the industry. That is what I have been able to announce today.
We come now to back-bench questions. We have a long list of members who would like to ask questions so I appeal for short questions and answers.
The minister will be aware of the work of the action group on fish processing and the role of Scottish Enterprise. Does she recognise that the fish processing industry, like the catching sector, accepts the need for restructuring? Will she continue to give a high priority to securing the future of the processing industry in the city of Aberdeen as well as in rural areas and to protecting the jobs of the thousands of people who work in that industry?
I met representatives of the action group on fish processing on Monday and was given an interim report. I agree that there is a need for us to have a long, hard look at the reprocessing sector and for some restructuring. The action group is examining some possible short-term measures and long-term restructuring measures. We have to think about the whole of the fishing sector, from the catchers to the secondary processors and the markets. I will do that in the coming months.
Does the minister accept that there is a difficulty with the image of her coming back from a Council of Ministers meeting covered in glory at a time when the fishing communities believe that they are about to be covered in poverty? Does she accept that every fishing organisation views the outcome of the council meeting for our negotiating position as either dismal or disastrous? Does she further accept that the measures that she is calling for have been called for by Scottish fishermen for the past 10 years?
Given that the Spanish industry has received £200 million a year for the past five years to help its fishing communities, would the minister care to put a figure on the sum that she will provide to Scotland's fishing communities in their hour of need?
Once more, I repeat that we believe that there is a secure future for the Scottish fishing industry. There is far too much doom and gloom. As Mr Lochhead accepted on "Newsnight Scotland" last week, we accept that there will be difficulties for the Scottish fishing community. The Scottish fishermen understand that. The Executive and I are working hard to make the future of the industry secure.
At this stage, I am not prepared to bandy figures about. Far too many figures have been loosely bandied about. I will repeat what I have said: we will sit down with the fishing industry and examine calmly the implications for the industry and we will seek to take measures that will ensure a secure but sustainable—that is the key word—fishing industry.
I welcome the minister's announcement that Scottish Enterprise has agreed to an initiative to help the industry restructure and that the Scottish Enterprise Grampian working group is making good progress. Does the minister agree that the fishing industry supports many jobs and communities and that that fact makes it vital that all avenues of support are explored to ensure that Scotland continues to have a sustainable fishing industry?
The initiative that we are taking, which is being led by Scottish Enterprise, and the announcement that I made today are important. The fishing industry is a vitally important sector in the Scottish economy. It tends to be concentrated in coastal communities. We need to have a long look at the fishing industry to ensure that we have a strong fishing industry in the future. The fish processing sector is an important part of the industry.
If memory serves, last year, John Home Robertson, the then Deputy Minister for Rural Affairs, came to the Rural Affairs Committee to discuss issues relating to the fishing industry. Might I take this opportunity to invite the minister to come back to the Rural Affairs Committee to discuss the issues raised today in a more constructive and less confrontational manner?
I welcome that invitation. Far too many figures have been bandied about. We need to think about the issues seriously and plan for the future in a calm and rational way. I would be happy to discuss the matter further in the Rural Affairs Committee.
I welcome the news that the UK has secured a good deal on nephrops and that the cut in the TAC has been reduced. Many of the fishermen in fragile communities on the west coast in my constituency are dependent on the prawn fishery, which is vital to the local economy. Many of those fishermen use static gear, which has no bycatch. Will the minister use that information to seek a further reduction in the TAC cut?
As I said in my statement, we have managed to secure a better deal for nephrops but, with proper scientific advice, we can do even better. The problem with nephrops is the cod bycatch. However, on the initial scientific advice, there appears to be quite a difference between the size of bycatch in inshore and in deeper waters. We need to get better scientific advice on that, and I hope that we can secure an even better deal on nephrops in the light of that advice.
Can the minister confirm the current view that the common fisheries policy has consistently failed us over the past 20 years; that it has failed to produce reductions in fishing effort in European Union waters; that quotas and TACs should eventually be got rid of; and that the only way to reduce fishing effort is to cut the total number of boats in Europe?
Does the minister agree that we need to look at the bigger picture? Twelve of the world's 14 major fisheries are severely overfished. We should ensure that the steps we in Europe and Scotland take avoid pressurising stocks elsewhere, particularly deep-sea stocks in the Atlantic—which, it seems, the French are now exploiting to the full—and off the west coast of Africa, where boats are taking advantage of the weak policing of the seas.
I thank Mr Harper, who raises some important points. In the spring, a review of the common fisheries policy will commence. We indeed have some concerns about how the CFP has operated. As we see the perilous state that some of our stocks are in, we want to avoid what happened in Newfoundland, where steps were taken far too late—the cod stocks there have never recovered. We must avoid such a situation here at all costs.
Mr Harper referred to deep-sea stocks. It was one of our key objectives at the December council to safeguard them, and we secured that. The French were keen to set TACs for deep-water stocks. We simply do not think that the scientific advice is available, and we have to get that advice in the course of the next year. I agree that we must examine the whole fishing effort with regard to the size and health of the available stocks.
Is the minister aware that the cod bycatch in the nephrops fishery in area IVb of the North sea, which is vital for some of my constituents in Berwickshire, is said to be negligible? Will she ensure that the North sea bycatch is disaggregated by area, so that any recovered quota can be assigned appropriately?
I accept that we need to consider further the levels of bycatch caught in the nephrops fishery, and I accept that the bycatch is significantly less in some areas. We will set in train the work to consider the situation straight away, and I hope that we will be able to secure a better deal for prawn fishermen.
What part did the minister play in the recent negotiations? Did she ask for anything different from what Elliot Morley was asking for? Can she detail the measures that she intends to put in place until the stocks recover and until the two Scottish Enterprise groups report back? People need help now.
Obviously, I work very closely with Elliot Morley. We comprise the United Kingdom delegation; indeed, the Northern Ireland Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development was also at the December council. In my discussions before the meeting with fishing industry representatives and with Elliot Morley, I argued strongly on our key objectives for the Scottish fishing industry. Mr Davidson can be assured of that.
As I have said to other members, we recognise that there will be tough times ahead for the industry. I have already put measures in place. Scottish Enterprise is setting up an initiative to examine the whole fishing industry. I have already had discussions with fishermen's organisations. Early in the new year, we will sit down in the cold light of day and look calmly at the figures. I rule nothing out and nothing in.
Rhona Brankin has made the best of a very difficult job. The industry understands fine that her decisions had to be taken; it is a pity that the Scottish National Party cannot grasp that fact.
On the difficult point of the transfer of whiting from a human consumption fishery in order to cover a bycatch in the industrial fishery, the minister has already acknowledged that the proposal is incomprehensible. What was the role of the European presidency on that part of the package? The minister said that she had a bilateral discussion with Franz Fischler to discuss that point. How did he seek to justify that perverse aspect of the package? What can be done to turn that round?
We have already arranged to have discussions with the Danes to deal with the issue of bycatch. I am particularly concerned that we have the best possible scientific advice about the actual bycatch of whiting in the industrial fishery. We do not believe that we currently have that information, so we will seek further advice: we will ask the Commission on what scientific advice it based its decision. We indeed had bilateral discussions with Commissioner Fischler on the issue, as well as with the presidency. We were told that whiting was an imperilled species, and that the Commission wanted to make absolutely sure that there was no overfishing for whiting. We will return to the scientific advice and we will reopen our discussions with Denmark.
The Commission has left the door open on prawn quotas, providing, I understand, that the Executive presents scientific evidence to it on cod bycatch. Can the minister specifically state the time scale to which the Scottish Executive is working to gather that evidence? When does the Executive hope to present that evidence to the Commission? Will the Commission take that decision, or will the matter need to go back to the Council of Ministers before the prawn quota can be adjusted, if the Executive can present scientific evidence to suggest that there is an absence of cod bycatch in prawn fishing?
As I have said, and as George Lyon has reiterated, we have a possibility to improve the situation for prawn fishermen. I cannot provide a time scale for that, but I would be happy to meet George—and anybody else with an interest in prawn fishing—to discuss the matter. Indeed, I am happy to meet anybody to discuss fishing issues, and I am pleased at the good turnout in the chamber for this morning's statement.
Will the minister acknowledge that Highlands and Islands Enterprise covers Mallaig, the coastal communities of Moray and Lochinver, which all depend on fishing? Will those areas be fully involved in the action group that was announced today? HIE has not been mentioned in that regard.
As there is no scientific evidence to support a cut in nephrops quotas, and as the minister accepted that there is no justification or need for such a cut, why was that not resisted? Will she visit the Mallaig and North West Fisheries Association early in the new year to discuss how a rollover can be achieved? Does she recall that, yesterday, the Prime Minister called the millennium dome a great success? Are we really expected to believe that this rotten deal is, likewise, a great success?
I remind Fergus Ewing that I lived in the Highlands for 25 years. Of course it is Scottish Enterprise that is putting up the money to fund the initiative, given that the whole of Scotland, with its fishing interests, is involved. I really think that Fergus's first question was not necessary.
I am of course happy to meet representatives of any of the fishermen's associations to discuss any of the issues that have been raised this morning. As for the nephrops situation, the problem is that the scientific advice is not clear at this stage. There is evidence that the cod bycatch is very low in some areas; there is also evidence to suggest that it is very high in other areas. I reiterate that I am happy to meet anybody who wishes to discuss the fishing industry with me. My door is open.
Will the minister confirm her earlier comment that west coast TACs are up? Does she agree that the prawn TAC has gone down by about 10 per cent? That comes in addition to last year's reductions. Will she acknowledge the particular difficulties of fishermen working in the Clyde estuary? Will she come to the south-west to meet fishermen there?
I accept that fishermen in some areas will have some difficulties. I reiterate that the deal that we secured for the west coast was the best possible deal. For many of the species concerned, the TAC that was agreed was above what the fishermen caught this year. I would be delighted to meet the fishermen to whom Phil Gallie referred at an early stage.
I welcome the proposals to address the issue of the North sea sand eel fisheries and the partial restoration of the nephrops quota. The minister recognised that those in the east neuk of Fife who rely on the prawn fisheries are concerned that they will face pressure from other fishermen who will want to take part of the quota on which they depend. What measures will the minister take to ensure that fishermen in Pittenweem and other small harbours are protected from the pressure of other small boats that will try to enter prawn fishing?
That is a good question. I recognise the reliance on prawn fishery in the east neuk of Fife. We need to obtain scientific advice as soon as possible to ensure that we can improve the prospects for prawn fishermen.
As the minister said in her statement, it is important to sustain the fish processing industry. Does she agree that part of the answer lies in treating fish not as a commodity but as a high-class food? Ironically, the scarcity of fish has raised its profile as a gourmet dish. Will the minister support the training schemes that the industry is promoting to educate all those who catch and process fish on the best way of handling it to preserve its quality so that it can fetch the highest price?
That is an important point. We need to consider the whole industry and, as I have said, that is what we will do. We will examine the industry right through from the catch to the table. Many complex issues are involved. For the first time ever, we will look at the industry as a whole.
I thank the minister and all other members for their co-operation in getting through the large number of questions in the allotted time.