Fishing Negotiations
The next item of business is a statement by Richard Lochhead on the outcome of end-of-year fishing negotiations. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.
16:29
Two weeks ago I informed the chamber of our intentions for the negotiations at the European Union fisheries council, which took place on Thursday and Friday last week, finishing shortly before 4am on Saturday morning. Before the negotiations, I outlined how crucial the talks would be for Scotland, and I think that it is useful to update Parliament on the outcome.
We went into the negotiations with a very dark cloud hanging over us. The legal quagmire of the cod recovery plan threatened to snatch from our fishermen their rightful opportunities to catch their quotas. Let me be clear about what was at stake. We faced penalties for an alleged misinterpretation of a regulation that would have kept large parts of our prawn and white-fish fleets idle in port for the vast majority of the year. The impact would have been catastrophic for our fishing communities. More than 200 vessels could have gone out of business. We were staring over an abyss of economic meltdown for two of our key fleets.
Recently, I explained to the chamber that that was all down to a decision by officials in Brussels to interpret one of the articles in the cod recovery plan—the notorious article 13—in a way that would have driven a coach and horses through our whole approach to sustainable fisheries management. In short, they wanted to scupper the win-win scenario that has been pioneered in Scotland, which has given the fleet the lifeline of more days at sea in return for delivering real gains in conservation.
I told the chamber that I would take every step to ensure that our fleets had the time to catch our available quotas, which would mean overturning the Commission’s decision. We made that goal our top priority as we went into the negotiations, to avoid our fleets plunging over the abyss of draconian penalties.
With enormous relief, I can now report that we managed to deliver that key priority. With the support of our United Kingdom, Northern Irish and Welsh counterparts, we played a leading role in winning widespread support for our incentive-based approach to achieving cod recovery. WWF and RSPB Scotland gave us a clear endorsement. During the negotiations, we managed to build the case for common sense, and the Commission was eventually obliged to accept our sensible and positive approach.
Our fishing communities can now look forward to 2012 with much greater optimism than would otherwise have been the case. Our vessels will still be able to secure additional days at sea in return for continuing to take conservation measures. The outcome that we achieved has allowed our fishermen to draw back from the brink and, finally, to make their plans for accessing their fishing opportunities next year.
To move forward, we must stick to our commitment to develop further cod avoidance measures, particularly in the important prawn fleet, where we all agree that the high discard rates need to be tackled. As always, that will be extremely challenging, but we have a strong and proud track record of working with our industry to put in place cutting-edge conservation measures.
Indeed, we have a head start. A month before the council, we were already actively discussing with the industry a range of selectivity measures, and we had a programme for further reducing discards clearly in our sights. It is important to make the point that many of those measures are being developed by the industry itself.
However, as we move forward, it is necessary for all vessels in all fisheries to support effective fisheries conservation. The package that was agreed last week adds extra urgency to the discussions and, through meetings with the industry in the early new year, we will set to work on putting in place the next stage of our conservation plan for 2012.
The fact that our fleets can now go to sea next year is without doubt the big prize that we had to win, but I—along with, I am sure, the rest of the Parliament—remain hugely frustrated that we were not also able to secure a pause in the automatic yearly cuts in days at sea that the crazy cod recovery plan imposes on our fishers. That was the other threat to days at sea that was being negotiated.
We pushed hard for such a pause alongside France, Germany and Spain and, up until the last moment, we genuinely believed that we had secured a vital breathing space for our fleets. However, as is so often the way, given the ludicrous nature of the rollercoaster negotiations, as we neared the finishing line, the Commission suddenly declared that common sense was no match for the legal straitjacket of the plan. In short, it insisted that it did not have the legal powers to deliver the pause that it appeared to be sympathetic to. That left us incredulous that the lawyers were once again running the show to the detriment of our fishing industry and our stocks.
We believe that the further cut in days at sea is grossly unfair and that it defies reason, but it is important to recognise that, thankfully, our success on the interpretation of article 13—the other issue affecting days at sea—will allow our fishers to reinstate the days that have been cut as a reward for taking conservation measures. Therefore, we must urgently investigate what new selective gears and other measures can be made to work in our mixed fishery to reduce cod mortality to the extent that complete exemption from the cuts will be allowed for the days-at-sea regime. That is one possible option.
Crucially, we left the negotiations with a clear commitment from the Commission that it would accelerate a complete overhaul of the cod recovery plan. Regardless of how belated that might be, we welcome it. We will focus our efforts next year on holding the Commission to that commitment.
Turning to our other priorities at the council—priorities that would normally dominate the debate at the council and here—I am pleased to be able to report an extremely positive picture.
We have been battling with the Commission for three years to remove west of Scotland haddock from catch-composition rules, which next year would have become a recipe for discards, given the increased quota for the stock. That key priority was finally secured at the council, thereby freeing our fishers to operate a targeted and profitable haddock fishery without massive and wasteful dumping of good-quality fish.
As part of the package, we secured the second-largest ever—I repeat, the second-largest ever—quota increase for a white-fish stock, with a 200 per cent increase for west coast haddock. That is still well within sustainable limits. At last our west coast haddock fishery has been placed on a sustainable and secure footing for the future.
More generally, we succeeded in overturning the Commission’s attempt to impose arbitrary cuts in quota for so-called data-poor stocks. That allowed us to pursue the far more sensible approach of considering each stock on the basis of all the available evidence and left us with a vastly improved set of outcomes, which are worth an additional £4 million to Scottish fishermen for those stocks alone.
We managed to hold steady quotas for a number of other stocks that were threatened with arbitrary cuts, such as ling and tusk, while successfully arguing, on the basis of the evidence, for a rollover for our valuable megrim stocks and smaller reductions for a number of others, such as North Sea nephrops, or prawns, for which the reduction was only 6.5 per cent, and monkfish, for which the reduction was just 5 per cent on the west coast and in the North Sea.
We followed our scientific long-term management plans, where plans were available. That means that in 2012 we can look forward to healthy increases across many of our key stocks, including a 94 per cent boost to North Sea herring, an 18 per cent gain in North Sea whiting, a 14 per cent increase in North Sea haddock and a huge uplift in blue whiting.
On top of that, we succeeded in achieving a commonsense approach to reaching maximum sustainable yield across all our key stocks, with agreement that we should follow the scientific advice to seek to reach that point by 2015, rather than bring the date forward to 2013—an unrealistic date, which had been plucked out of thin air.
These were the toughest of negotiations. I take the opportunity to pay tribute to the Scottish Government officials who worked over two days without sleep to fight Scotland’s corner and deliver many gains for our industry. We achieved all but one of our key priorities, in extremely challenging circumstances. Crucially, we resolved in our favour a dispute with the Commission that would have decimated our fleets and made a mockery of our approach to rewarding fishers for conservation actions that will improve the cod stock and reduce discarding, which are aims that the Commission and member states are supposed to share. We achieved that by working closely and effectively with our UK partners and other member states. We also saw healthy quota increases in key stocks such as haddock, whiting and herring. Those are big gains, which will be worth millions of pounds to the Scottish fleet. We at last achieved our long-standing priority to remove haddock from the west coast catch-composition rules.
Our one disappointment was that we were prevented from stopping the on-going annual cuts in days at sea, due to the frustrating legal barriers that I mentioned. However, that will provide a driver for accelerating the overhaul of the current plan and ensuring that its successor is much more sensible and delivers effective conservation of cod stock alongside viable fishing opportunities for the Scottish fleet.
I am determined that in 2012 we will finally strike the balance between fisheries conservation and fleet viability, and I am determined to secure, in time for the new common fisheries policy in 2013, the necessary changes to that damaging policy, to allow Scotland more control over the destiny of our fishing industry and our seas.
The cabinet secretary will take questions on the issues that he raised in his statement. I intend to allow about 20 minutes for questions, after which we will move on to the next item of business.
I thank the cabinet secretary for the early advance copy of his statement, and I am pleased to respond in my new role. I discovered this morning that there was to be a statement on the fishing negotiations; there is nothing like being thrown in at the deep end. The east neuk fishing industry is in my region, so I very much recognise the need to support our fishing sector and acknowledge its importance to the viability of many communities.
It was difficult to get to where we are with the EU fisheries negotiations, and I acknowledge the contribution of the Scottish Government, the UK Government, the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, RSPB Scotland and WWF in securing the withdrawal of the proposed regulation in the cod recovery plan. Their achievement underlines the importance of everyone working together in the interests of the Scottish fishing industry.
Following the outcome of the negotiations, how will the cabinet secretary respond to the concerns of the fishing sector, which is worried about elements of the deal? How will the Scottish Government work with both the fishing fleet and the processing sector to address those concerns? The cabinet secretary stresses his frustration at the inflexibility of the cod recovery plan, but what further dialogue will the Scottish Government have with the Commission to get it to recognise the Scottish fishing industry’s strenuous efforts to deliver sustainable fishing and promote the use of scientific evidence in advance of the promised complete overhaul of the cod recovery plan?
I thank Claire Baker for her questions and extend a warm welcome to her in her new role. I am sure that she will enjoy engaging with the rural affairs and environment portfolio and, in particular, with our fishing communities. I am also sure that I speak for most members of the Parliament when I say that very few will envy her having been given only a few hours to respond to a ministerial statement on fisheries.
We will be working very closely with our fishing industry throughout 2012. One clear message that I want to get across is that our industry is taking its obligations in relation to fisheries conservation very seriously indeed. Many of the measures that we now have to bring forward early in 2012—with a view to allowing the fleet to buy back days at sea in return for adopting new conservation measures—were already in the pipeline, and many of the discussions had already started over the past few months. Many fishermen have been trialling new measures and new gear, and I hope that those trials are productive. I know that many will be deployed for the first time in 2012. The close working relationship with the industry, which I certainly support, will continue.
Claire Baker mentioned the impact on the onshore sector. That was a very important theme throughout the negotiations. Our fish processors need continuity of supply, otherwise they will lose their markets. On the one hand we are getting increased quotas, which is a very positive piece of news for our onshore sector. However, on the other hand, we had the debate about whether the fleet should go to sea to catch those quotas, and we have to make sure that that happens.
We will maintain dialogue with the European Commission. There are many issues that we want to pursue after last week’s negotiations, but we also want to hold the Commission to its word that there will be an early, thorough overhaul of the cod recovery plan. We are not against the principle of a cod recovery plan, but it must work in Scottish circumstances. That is our aim.
I thank the minister for sight of his statement.
This is indeed lumpy water yet again for the Scottish fishing fleet. Despite welcome quota increases in west coast haddock and North Sea herring, and the smaller increase in North Sea haddock, what was given to the Scottish fleet by the Commission’s right hand was taken away by its left hand. The reaction of the Scottish fleet to me is that it is hugely disappointed and that the outcome is a bitter blow.
Does the cabinet secretary feel that the result is a good one? Does he think that the status quo would have been a good enough result? Why does the Scottish fleet, which has been praised by the Commission for conservation, again have to suffer cuts in effort, which will play havoc with the livelihoods of people in fishing communities up and down the Scottish coastline? Why is poor Scotland, which has strived to perfect conservation measures, being punished while Iceland and the Faroes, which, frankly, have done the opposite, are so far basking in their forbidden fruits—or should I say forbidden fish? Is it any wonder that Euroscepticism and disillusion with politicians thrive when, in the cabinet secretary’s own words,
“common sense was no match for the legal straitjacket”
of the Commission’s plans?
Jamie McGrigor asked first for my response to the results that we achieved at the negotiations last week. I will make two clear points. First, we achieved all our priorities, bar one. It is not often that any minister in Scotland or the UK can come back from the negotiations and say that. Secondly, it is regrettable that, as I outlined in my statement, we did not achieve that priority. We resisted with the utmost vigour, but for legal reasons—which is not a good enough excuse from the Commission—we were unable to achieve the pause that we wanted to achieve.
We now have to work with our industry because, as I hope Jamie McGrigor and others accept and as I said in response to Claire Baker, we still have some way to go in fisheries conservation.
I agree that the negotiations were about fishing opportunities for Scotland’s fleet. As I said, where the science can back them, we have a variety of quota increases. However, the negotiations were also about fisheries conservation, because we must ensure that the stocks are there for future generations.
The industry in Scotland recognises that we still have some way to go, as I am sure do Jamie McGrigor and the Conservatives. However, we must ensure that the legislation that comes out of Brussels is appropriate for Scottish waters. We have a mixed fishery, which is why the combination of quotas and constant effort reduction is not the right solution for our waters.
If we have short questions and answers, I might manage to get everyone in; otherwise, I am afraid that I will not be able to.
What assessment has been made of the impact that the negotiations will have on the fishing industry as a whole? What help or advice will be available to fishermen who are struggling to adjust to the outcome of this year’s talks?
We will produce the economic analysis of the negotiations in due course. Our initial findings are that they will be largely neutral in terms of revenue for the fleet. If anything, there will be an increase in the value of the quotas that can be landed in Scotland. However, we are continuing to work out that information.
With regard to the future, I can only reiterate what I said in response to other members, which is that we will work closely with the industry on many of the measures that we want to put in place so that we can finally reach a position whereby we are fishing sustainably in all fisheries with all vessels, which will be a win-win situation in which we will land better-quality fish from sustainable fisheries and have higher incomes for our fishermen, while at the same time having a long-term conservation plan in place.
On the issue of scientific evidence, is it possible in these challenging economic times for the Scottish Government to put any finance into support for the evidence base that the industry needs for the future to address the complex issue of what the catches consist of? For the record, I am pleased to speak again in a fisheries debate. I say to the cabinet secretary that the negotiations must have been extremely challenging—it is not a place that I would like to be in.
I assure Claudia Beamish that it has its good moments as well. I thank her for her questions and I welcome her to her new role in the Labour shadow team with responsibility for the environment and climate change. I expect that she will have more exchanges with my colleague Stewart Stevenson than with me, but I am sure that we will have exchanges from time to time.
We paid attention to the science throughout the negotiations. The irony was that, quite often, the European Commission, which likes to preach how important the science is, did not stick to the science. If I had had a couple of extra hours for my ministerial statement, I could have explained to members what we had to go through just to secure a 200 per cent increase in the west of Scotland haddock catch, when the scientists were recommending a 410 per cent increase. Perhaps that gives members an indication of the inconsistency in Europe’s approach to such matters. However, we are confident that we stuck to the science throughout.
I am determined that adequate support will be available for fisheries science in Scotland in the future. Our challenge is always that we have more than 30 species that we fish for in our waters alone, so other countries are not always able to contribute to the scientific effort. It is quite a challenge to fund that, because we must prioritise. However, we will pay close attention to that.
The chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, Bertie Armstrong, has said that the European Commission has totally ignored the progress in stock conservation that has been made in Scotland. Does the cabinet secretary, too, believe that that is the case? Would genuine regional management play a more active part in promoting conservation than the legal straitjacket does?
I agree that the experience of this fisheries council and the previous one only serves to highlight how important radical reform of the common fisheries policy is. If we had decentralisation of the kind of decisions that were discussed on Thursday, Friday and Saturday back to member state level, working where appropriate on a regional basis, we would reach the right decisions without the anomalies and inconsistencies that we experience in Brussels in every annual negotiation.
In response to Rob Gibson’s first point, I can only reiterate that we should remember that, just a couple of weeks ago, a law—not a proposal but a law—was published by the European Commission that would have decimated the fishing fleet in Scotland had it stayed in place. We resolved that in Scotland’s favour at the negotiations, which is a big prize that we must not forget.
In his statement, the minister said that Scotland played a leading role in the negotiations, with the support of the UK Government, which I am pleased to hear about. Of course, with a leading role comes a lead responsibility. We are now seeing what the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation is calling a bitter blow.
We need to have a question, Mr Hume.
Earlier, the SFF said to me that the number of days at sea was a red-line issue. Will the minister tell me how on earth the fishermen will have time to catch their quota? What measures will the Government put in place to tackle the issue?
The key is to take advantage of the fact that the dispute over article 13 is now resolved, which means that we are allowed to give back to the fleet the amount that was cut, as a reward for adopting conservation measures. That has to be our tactic.
Although we disagree with the European Commission that it is possible to have year-on-year cuts—because, clearly, the more the basic allocation for the fleet is cut, the more difficult it becomes to restore the days, because we have a mixed fishery in Scotland and avoiding cod is difficult in many circumstances—there is a lot more that we can do. There are certain fisheries in Scotland in which discard levels are too high. I know that the Liberal Democrats and the other parties support this Parliament taking action in partnership with our industry to reduce those discards. We should focus on that and do what is right for fisheries conservation, as well as the fleet’s long-term future.
I start by saying how much I have enjoyed working opposite the cabinet secretary and Mr Stevenson—and Ms Cunningham and Mr Russell—over the past three and a half years.
Can the minister assure us that EU implementing regulation 1211/2011/EC has been permanently repealed and cannot be brought back without consultation, as it was previously?
Is there any detail attached to the proposed overhaul of the cod recovery plan with regard to issues such as timescale, consultation and, possibly, additional scientific information that might inform any future plan?
We will deeply miss Elaine Murray in this portfolio, but I am sure that she will still be around, given her rural interests as a constituency MSP.
I confirm that the article 13 dispute has been resolved. A declaration was passed at the council, which we are satisfied gave us what we wanted at the end of that important dispute.
As I indicated in my statement, the commissioner has given a commitment to the council that, early in 2012, she will propose an alternative to the existing cod recovery plan. We will hold her to that timetable and will demand that ways be found to ensure that it is fixed as soon as possible because, of course, we face the prospect of co-decision with the European Parliament, which could take up to 18 months, and we want some early changes in place.
I congratulate the cabinet secretary on securing the 200 per cent increase in west coast haddock. That was a remarkable achievement in the circumstances.
In his statement, the cabinet secretary referred to the new CFP that is anticipated for 2013. How does he see our negotiating position panning out, particularly in light of the curious developments at the European Council summit that took place the week before the fisheries council?
That is a very good question. I am sure that time will tell. Thankfully, many countries in Europe realise that two thirds of the UK fisheries are based in Scotland. I assure the chamber that Scotland has many friends in Europe at the current time. We will use that good will to ensure that Scotland’s voice is heard in the renegotiation of the common fisheries policy.
Is the cabinet secretary pushing the European Commission to produce a legal document that can allow the automatic cuts in days at sea that he mentioned in his statement to stop, which is what all member states want? What additional restrictions will be placed on our white-fish vessels this year so that they do not fall foul of a regime that will allow them to fish only four days in a fortnight?
I assure Tavish Scott that I and, I am sure, my UK colleagues, will be fighting tooth and nail to ensure that we can pin down the commissioner on a strict timetable for—and, indeed, a legal interpretation of—a new cod recovery plan, with the amendments that we want put in place. We are not opposed to the principle of a cod recovery plan—indeed, Scotland is leading the way in many regards in helping cod stocks to recover in our waters—but we have to have those changes in place as soon as possible. We will continue on those lines.
Obviously, the processing sector and markets rely on a continuity of supply in order to make their businesses viable. Can the cabinet secretary assure us that he will have discussions to ensure that the reduced days at sea are staggered in such a way that that continuity is not affected, which would have a detrimental impact on the processing sector and the markets?
Mark McDonald raises a good point. The future of our fishing industry in Scotland is not just about tax and quotas that are negotiated in Brussels or anywhere else, but about how the processing and onshore sector interacts with the fleet at sea. That is one of the biggest failings of our fishing industry in Scotland, because it has not been happening adequately in recent years.
If there is anything that I can do—and I have been trying to encourage this for a long time—to fix a better relationship and greater co-ordination between landings and what the market requires for the processors and onshore sector, I will do it. That will be another win-win situation: the fleet will get higher prices and the processors will get continuity of supply. The sea fisheries partnership that the Scottish Government is setting up will address the very point that Mark McDonald raised, because we have to pay attention to the markets.
There are many in the fishing industry who believe that the whole debacle over article 13 was simply a clever tactical ploy by EU officials that allowed them to cut days at sea, leaving our fishermen to pay a heavy price for the settlement. What is the cabinet secretary’s view on that theory?
As I said before, it was not a European Commission proposal but an act of law that was published—it was then withdrawn, thankfully, but at one point it was the law of the land that we would suffer penalties that would mean that our fleet could not go to sea. Thankfully, we have resolved that dispute, and that was the right thing to do.
I once again experienced the European Commission’s tactics—well over 48 hours without any sleep—and I can tell members that they are not the best. Thankfully, they do not often win, but the way in which they are implemented is abhorrent. That is a symptom of the common fisheries policy being far too centralised and the Commission trying to reach a deal among 27 member states, many of which do not even have fisheries, over a matter of hours. That is not the way to do business and it is not the way to treat Scotland’s fishing communities.
In response to an earlier question, the cabinet secretary agreed that the high discard level was an issue. Can he expand on the Scottish Government’s plans for further cod avoidance measures to tackle the high discard level?
To give Margaret McDougall comfort, the industry has been working closely with the scientists and the Scottish Government. There are a number of new nets being developed, as well as other measures. Others are still to be developed in the future, but we hope that those measures will be deployed in 2012, which will help to cut the discard rate and improve cod avoidance. That will in turn allow more days to be given to the fleet at sea, which will be a win-win situation all round.