Fisheries Council
We turn now to the ministerial statement on the European Union Fisheries Council, which will last for about 20 minutes. Then we will come to the business motion.
I am pleased to have this opportunity to report to the Parliament on the outcome of the Fisheries Council meeting held on 26 October in Luxembourg.
I attended the meeting as part of the UK team together with Elliot Morley, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for the UK Government. My attendance was of some constitutional significance. That was the first time that a Scottish Executive minister had attended a European Council meeting. I was welcomed by the chairman of the council, and I made useful preliminary contacts with other fisheries ministers. I intend to go to future Fisheries Council meetings, starting with those scheduled for 22 November and 16 December. However, the Executive does not intend to make a statement of this sort after every council.
The council had extensive discussions about two important draft regulations. The first of those involves proposals for revising the marketing arrangements for fish and aquaculture products.
The European Commission has proposed a wide-ranging revision of the fisheries marketing regime within its common fisheries policy. The Commission's proposal includes providing better consumer information through compulsory labelling of fish at retail level; supporting producer organisations and more detailed requirements for POs, including the need to prepare annual production plans; imposing tighter limits for payment for withdrawal of fish from the market; and the setting of permanent import tariff reductions, or suspensions, for fish species of importance to EU processors.
On that final point, the position on herring is of key Scottish interest. Scottish fishermen are the main catchers of herring in the EU and the suspension of a tariff for herring could enable cheaper imports of herring into the Community. Unlike other areas where tariff suspensions are proposed, there is a Community production surplus in herring.
The UK made the council aware of the vital importance of herring to the Scottish fishing industry and advised it that, from a Scottish perspective, it was important that herring is removed from the proposals for tariff suspension. Some importing of herring to the Community is unavoidable, but we need to ensure that that is closely managed with the smallest possible tariff quota that the market will bear. The council made some progress with that item but a number of detailed points remained unresolved. The council will resume consideration at its November meeting.
A similar position was reached on the second major regulation relating to the reform of structural funds in the fisheries sector in the context of Agenda 2000. That proposal sets out the fisheries measures which can be given financial aid from 1 January 2000 under the financial instrument for fisheries guidance.
The major sticking point is about the conditions under which public aid might be paid to support the building of new vessels. The Commission has proposed that such aid should be subject to a requirement that the capacity of any subsidised new boat should be 30 per cent less than the capacity of the vessel that is being replaced. I support that approach, which is the agreed UK line. The ratio is important to take account of the higher efficiency and greater catching power of new vessels. I know from my discussions with the fishing industry prior to the council that it understands the logic behind this measure.
Also on the council agenda was an item on the future of fisheries relations with Morocco, a report on the cost-benefit analysis of third-country fisheries agreements and a Commission presentation about a regulation on closer dialogue with the fishing industry.
The last of those is perhaps of greatest interest to this Parliament. I discussed that issue with the Scottish Fishermen's Federation before the council. We share its view that regional meetings should be a very important element in the Commission's dialogue with the fishing industry, and the Commission proposal has been remitted for further examination. I will ensure that Scottish fishermen's views are fully taken into account.
I welcome this statement coming so soon after the Fisheries Council meeting, although I am astonished that it will not be a regular occurrence. I urge the minister to take on board the pelagic industry's concerns as these discussions are on-going.
Does the minister agree that it is not just attendance at Fisheries Council meetings that matters? What matters is being able to wield authority on behalf of the Scottish fishing industry. I would like to know if he did that, how he did that, and if he had to clear his line with the minister from the fisheries department in London? Did he
have to clear his line before sticking up for the Scottish fishing industry? That is an important question for the fishermen in connection with issues such as fleet renewal and modernisation, which are referred to in the statement. If funds become available under the proposed regulations, does the minister support the industry's case to access funds for fleet renewal and modernisation which have been denied them in the past? Will he put the industry's case on that matter?
I suspect that I would be trying the patience of the Parliament if I were to make statements on every single Fisheries Council meeting. We will, however, consider whether there is anything of substance to report. If there is anything that we judge needs to be reported to the Parliament, we will certainly do so. We will no doubt consider that further.
Mr Lochhead makes a specific point about what authority I have as a UK fisheries minister at the council. Frankly, it is rather more than a minister from a nationalist Scotland would have. I spoke on behalf of the United Kingdom with the benefit of 10 votes in the Fisheries Council. If an independent Scotland were able to get admission to the European Union, the most it could hope to have is three votes. We have considerably more clout than Mr Lochhead could ever aspire to have.
I spoke at the council and my presence was acknowledged. As the minister with the lion's share of responsibility for fisheries in the UK, I intend to use that authority in discussion with my colleagues at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and at the council.
Scotland has had the benefit of £30 million of expenditure under the FIFG programme over the last five years. We are keen that a successor instrument be put in place as soon as possible so that our industry can take full advantage of it.
I welcome the minister's statement, especially the bit about better consumer information, which will encourage more consumption of fish in this age of information addiction. I also welcome support for producer organisations, but I must ask the minister if he has taken account of the smaller fishermen, especially those on the west coast, who are not part of producer organisations and who are in danger of being swamped by them.
How will the minister encourage the industry's future, and encourage young people into it? How can young people, for example, come into the prawn creel fishing industry with prawn quotas at their present price level? And what is he doing for the scallop fishermen who have been tied up all summer, complying with the ban on scallop fishing due to amnesic shellfish poisoning? They have been unable to do any other fishing and have thus had no income at all.
I am grateful to Mr McGrigor for the points that he raises, particularly those on marketing. He is right that it is important that this industry should be able to take more advantage of value adding. The potential value of fish landed in Scotland is considerably higher than the actual value realised by the catchers and the local fishing communities. That is a very important part of the Scottish Executive's policy. We want to encourage measures that will help fishermen and fishing communities to get more out of what they catch.
Mr McGrigor may know that we recently established the Scottish inshore fisheries advisory group, in partnership with the industry, to discuss in particular the problems of small boats to which he refers. We understand the tremendous importance of the smaller ports, particularly on the west coast where the industry is rather fragile and has suffered many pressures. He mentioned the ASP problem, and I would also refer to the recent closures of the nephrop fishery in the North sea. I am delighted that we may have been able to reopen that. I was encouraged by the constructive tone of the initial discussions in the inshore fisheries advisory group and I hope that we will make progress with those objectives.
While I understand fully the reasons why the Executive will not make a statement to the chamber after attendance at future meetings, I hope that ministers will make statements to the relevant parliamentary committees on their return.
In the statement, the minister recognised, correctly, the importance to Scotland of the herring industry. Will he ensure, when he attends the Fisheries Council meetings on 22 November and 16 December, that he presses home the point that herring must be removed from the proposals for tariff suspension?
I accept Mr Rumbles's point about making a statement to the committee as an alternative. The making of such statements is a matter that will evolve. As I said to Mr Lochhead, I am advised by colleagues who have long experience of attending council meetings that some such meetings go on for a long time and achieve very little indeed. Not a lot is to be gained from inflicting long, boring statements on the Parliament on every occasion.
Indeed. [Laughter.]
Our friend from North Tayside will understand the full horror of such things, I am sure. We could certainly inflict it on
the committee instead.
Mr Rumbles's point about herring is well made. I made that point to the council and I think the Danish delegate said that he wanted the full suspension, so that the Danish processing industry could access herring from outside the European Union. I made the point directly to him that plenty of herring is available from Scottish catches. We have made that point to the Commission, and I am sure that the Commission officials will take account of what we said. Some negotiating still has to take place on that, but we have made our position abundantly clear.
Owing to the current ASP outbreak, profits that would have been used to improve facilities in the fish processing industry are threatened. Will there be assistance for that sector to help it improve its facilities?
We do not yet know the details of the next generation of the financial instrument for fisheries guidance. However, as I said, a lot of good work—worth £30 million—has been done on marketing, port improvements, processing, safety and other aspects of the fleet. We are keen to put in place a successor scheme, and it is important that that should be up and running as early as possible next year, precisely in order to help sectors such as the one referred to by Rhoda Grant.
I assure the minister that those of us who come from fishing constituencies will not find speeches on fisheries boring. Indeed, we will look forward to them.
Is the aid for new build that the minister mentioned in the context of FIFG available to all parts of the catching sector, or will the multi- annual guidance programme requirements prevent some sectors from taking it up?
On the minister's point about closer dialogue with the fishing industry, I understand that the committee that has existed since 1971 has not achieved a heck of a lot. The important principles are that the new structures take into account the views of Scottish fishing organisations and, perhaps more important, that in the context of developing regional management of fisheries, the new committee and new structures of dialogue can be adaptable to those changes. Will the minister consider those points?
Those are helpful points. I appreciate the obvious interest in the fishing industry in Mr Scott's Shetland constituency. He may live to regret his undertaking to consider every detail that comes out of every council working party, but we will try to test him on that one in due course.
Mr Scott's point about the requirement to make any investment in new build in the fleet conditional on reducing capacity is very important. There is concern that the Mediterranean countries in particular might take advantage of that provision to put public money into the replacement of older boats with much more modern boats that might be superficially the same size but have substantially increased catching capacity. That is why we support the Commission line on that.
On the multi-annual guidance programme, Mr Scott is right. We will have to keep a particularly close eye on those countries that have not achieved the requirements to reduce their capacity in those segments. We do not want what is described as capacity creep, particularly of the publicly funded nature. [Laughter.] I thought you would like that, Mr Swinney. Of course, I will not mention the other creeps in this chamber.
Consultation is certainly very important. We made it clear to representatives of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation that we want to see as much of them as possible. Indeed, I am looking forward to dining with them this evening. The Commission is setting up a new Community-wide advisory committee on fisheries. That is a matter for the Commission, but we are going one step further and seeking a regional approach to discussions on fisheries, for example, in the North sea area.
I call Maureen Macmillan.
I am sorry, I do not have a question.
I am sorry. Your name was still on the screen, but that may be an electronic fault. I call Margaret Ewing.
Will the minister rethink the concept that he may try the Parliament's patience by making regular statements after council meetings? In particular, full statements should be made to the Parliament on the November and December meetings because the agenda is set down for the following year at that time. The industry, as well as Parliament, will certainly want to hear public statements on that.
I disagree with Mike Rumbles that statements should be made to the Rural Affairs Committee and the European Committee. In the context of the Commission asking for additional meetings, the Rural Affairs Committee and the European Committee should hold pre-council meetings to reflect the Parliament's views and those of members who represent fishing communities. Those views would then be taken on our behalf to the council and, I hope, the minister might actually demand the right to vote to reflect those views.
It is not for me to suggest what committees of the Parliament should do. The Parliament and its committees are autonomous bodies and can, quite rightly, take their own decisions on how they approach such matters. We are the servants of the Parliament, and rightly so. [Laughter.] That might cause some alarm in some quarters—I do not know.
What Mrs Ewing said is important. The forthcoming council meetings in November and December will deal with important decisions on structures, on marketing and, in due course, on total allowable catches, which are of enormous importance to our industry. On matters of substance, I certainly intend to report directly to the Parliament.
I welcome the minister's historic statement. Is progress being made on our long-term objective of achieving regional management of fisheries within the European Union and, in particular, in the North sea, which the minister mentioned in his answer to Mr Scott?
Certainly. I had some useful discussions with council colleagues on that issue. With the enlargement of the European Union, it will become increasingly difficult to manage the local details of the common fisheries policy. There is a strong case, which is being pursued by the entire UK delegation, including myself, for finding ways of working up regional discussions about the management of the North sea in which we, and our North sea neighbours, have the primary interest.
My only word of caution on that is that if we have complete regional management for the North sea, there might also be complete regional management of the Mediterranean. Some overall control from the council is needed; I would not like the Mediterranean countries to have complete freedom to decide to increase the capacity of their fleet using our taxpayers' money. Regional management and discussions are important and we are pursuing that idea.
The minister will be aware that two thirds of the world's fish stocks are overfished. Many of Europe's stocks are also dangerously overfished. A quarter of the world's total catch is thrown overboard, because the fish are either too small or of the wrong species. Business as usual is no longer acceptable.
While I welcome the 30 per cent rule for the larger boats, I would rather that there was no capitalisation for big boats and more capitalisation for smaller community fishing. That would address the concerns raised by Jamie McGrigor.
With reference to the broader picture, will the minister, with UK ministers, call for the ratification of the United Nations fisheries agreement, which I believe the UK has already signed? In particular, will the minister address the following points?
We cannot have a speech as this time is for questions.
These are questions.
Yes, but we cannot have a list of questions. You must be brief.
I will pick one question then. Will there be a real attempt to cut back on EU capacity? What the minister has told us so far does not assure me that there will be.
If Mr Harper were to have discussions with the fishing industry, he would establish that there have been significant cuts in capacity in Scotland, in the UK and across the European Union. Those cuts have been painful for the fleet, although rightly so, because the overriding principle must be to ensure the sustainability of fisheries. Lessons must be learned from the disasters that have happened in other parts of the world where whole fishing industries have been destroyed by overfishing. That point was made in the council—I made a passing reference to the Moroccan agreement. It is important when we negotiate agreements with other African countries that we ensure that their fisheries are sustainable. There is nothing justifiable about allowing European fleets to fish out stocks in other parts of the world. I therefore take Mr Harper's fundamental point that sustainability is an important principle and one to which we have signed up.
I will take a couple more questions, as long as they are brief.
Will the minister reflect on the damage that has been done to Scottish fishing interests and our wider interests in Europe by William Hague's extremely damaging argument that we should enter a tit-for-tat trade war with France over the illegal French beef ban? That position, which is supported by Scottish Tories here, is completely against Scotland's wider interests and threatens the destruction of—
Order. The member must ask a question on the statement.
The question, clearly, is how much damage has been done to Scottish fishing interests in Europe.
Mr Glavany, the French agriculture and fisheries minister, was at the council, but I did not have an opportunity to talk to him about other issues. It is a little depressing to see the French delegation looking almost as, if not as, isolated as the United Kingdom delegation
looked when the Conservative party was in power. Tit-for-tat trade wars are infantile and destructive.
I will not respond to the minister's remark other than to say that some of the ministers in the Blair Government dare not listen to that comment.
Fleet safety is an important issue. The Scottish fleet is, on average, about 28 years old. Fishing communities are concerned about the safety of their vessels. Will restrictions in fleet renewal keep boats below a size at which it is economically viable to maintain a fully trained engineer on board?
My colleague Elliot Morley addressed that point in the council. Safety is obviously of paramount importance in an industry in which people work hard and in potentially dangerous circumstances. Every year there is an accident somewhere. Safety is therefore a high priority. Funding under the financial instrument should include provision for genuine safety improvements to boats. There are borderline issues, however. Aspects of investment can add to catching capacity. We have made it clear that we want to be able to help fishermen to improve safety on their vessels. That was done under the existing scheme and it is our intention that it should continue under the new scheme.
I will take one more question and answer, if they are brief.
Is the minister aware of the outstanding success of the electronic fish market at Troon? How will the European Community address the key issues of quality and marketing in the fishing industry?
I commend my colleague's interest in this important subject. I had the opportunity to visit the new market at Troon not long ago. It is an excellent example of how to improve the quality of fish delivered to the market. In addition to labelling and other developments, it will improve the prospects for the fishing industry and the rewards for fishing communities. I pay tribute to everyone concerned in the innovative marketing scheme in Troon. It is the kind of thing that we want to see elsewhere.