Hansard

It does not really feel like a year since we last discussed the annual fisheries negotiations in the chamber. Time flies by when we are really busy, and 2014 has certainly been a busy year for Scotland. We have seen momentous and historic events the likes of which we might not see again for some time—but hopefully not too long.

The fundamental significance of fishing to this country remains—year in, year out. Our communities continue to depend on our fishermen, who often operate in treacherous conditions that make fishing one of the most dangerous industries in the country. That was brought home again this year with the loss of life from the Ocean Way accident, which was a horrible reminder that too many pay the ultimate price to bring food to our tables.

Our fisheries are varied and are spread the length and breadth of our country, from small inshore vessels to the largest and most sophisticated offshore vessels. That same fleet of vessels is supporting our vital onshore processing sector, which handles and sells our fabulous seafood, with its unrivalled reputation, the world over.

I pay tribute, as I am sure we all do, to the resilience and spirit of this great industry and I acknowledge its contribution to the social and economic wellbeing of many of our communities.

We are in the midst of the end-year negotiations. Negotiations by their nature cause uncertainty, and the annual bun fights, which we are now used to, can act against sensible planning. All that strengthens the Government’s resolve to secure the best possible outcomes for the industry in this year’s negotiations, which culminate in next week’s fisheries council in Brussels.

I am pleased to note that we have started on a bright note with the gains that were achieved at the European Union and Norway negotiations last week. For the first time in recent years, the talks were concluded in advance of the December council negotiations, which removes uncertainty over key North Sea quotas and access to Norwegian waters.

As members can imagine, there were intense negotiations about the total allowable catches for cod and haddock in particular. Those two stocks are closely linked in the rich and diverse mixed fishery of the North Sea, where harsh limits on one stock could lead to increased discarding of the other. To force more discards on the fleet in that way would send the wrong message as the sector moves towards mixed fishery plans and the landing obligation as part of the discard bans, when our watchwords will have to be common sense, flexibility and innovation.

I am glad to say that common sense prevailed and, after much discussion, the talks delivered a much-needed and scientifically justifiable 5 per cent increase in the North Sea cod quota against a backdrop of a proposed 20 per cent cut. The North Sea saith and whiting quotas were reduced in line with long-term management plans, although, as with haddock, we continued to secure an inward transfer from Norway of additional whiting to help to mitigate the effect of that cut. Other elements were rolled over from last year in a package that was broadly welcomed by the industry in Scotland.

Given that, this year, haddock was assessed for the first time as one whole northern stock straddling the North Sea and the waters to the west of Scotland, I am confident that, in Brussels next week, we will be able to secure a significant increase in quota for the west of Scotland haddock stock.

The negotiating season moved on to the EU and Faroe Islands talks, which concluded just today. As many members will recall, that important bilateral agreement was reinstated in 2014 after a four-year pause and much angst, and it has now re-established critical access for our white-fish fleet to Faroese waters, which alone is worth more than £3 million a year. The deal provides much-needed flexibility through access to additional fishing grounds and the provision of an effort refuge from the cod recovery zone for many of our vessels.

I am pleased to confirm to the Parliament that we have managed to maintain the same level of white-fish quota and that there has been no increase in access for Faroese vessels. In line with the overall total allowable catch changes, the quota that the Faroese can fish has been reduced from nearly 47,000 tonnes to less than 40,000.

In negotiating the agreements, it is my job to balance the multiple needs across all sectors of the industry to secure the wider benefits for all our fleets. Let us be clear that the share of access given to the Faroese reduced from 43 per cent in 2010 to 30 per cent in 2014, and today’s agreement maintains that level.

I assure the Parliament—I know that the matter has been of concern to many people—that our compliance teams have targeted their resources and expertise on monitoring the Faroese vessels that fish some of their quota in Scottish waters. In the past year, we have carried out 29 inspections on 51 Faroese fishing trips. That is close to a 60 per cent inspection rate, which is a truly impressive level of scrutiny, especially considering the environment that our compliance vessels have to operate in at this time of year. I hope that those figures reassure our fleet.

I know that our fleet will benefit from the sustainable mackerel quotas for 2015 that have been agreed in the past few weeks, which yield a Scottish quota of just under 187,000 tonnes. That agreement will provide stability as we look ahead to next year, aided by our successful calls to the European Commission for increased banking provisions for mackerel in response to the Russian trade sanctions.

We are packing our bags for the annual endurance test that is the December fisheries council in Brussels, when all the talks come together with the negotiation that will take place next week for the internal EU stocks. I am told that I am now the longest-serving fisheries minister in the whole of Europe. Based on my experience, I will never be convinced that it is sensible to do business in a sleep-deprived environment that is crammed in over two days. That is no doubt what we will experience early next week.

As expected, this year’s scientific advice presented what we always term a mixed bag. The overall picture is more positive than last year’s, with some welcome advice suggesting increases for key stocks such as northern shelf and Rockall haddock, monkfish, megrim and North Sea nephrops.

However, it is still as disappointing as it is illogical that once again we will have to expend energy on fighting off proposed cuts in the days at sea that our fishermen are able to fish. It is frustrating that we are still having to struggle free of the outdated and flawed straitjacket that was imposed by the now discredited cod recovery plan. That is why, when I met Commissioner Vella last week in Brussels, I made it clear that the cod recovery plan is well past its sell-by date and needs to be replaced urgently. I was encouraged by his willingness to listen and I hope that that willingness is soon translated into action.

More generally, we shall protect our position when the advice on quotas is unclear or when we need to ensure that positive recommendations, such as those that we have for monkfish and west of Scotland haddock, are implemented next week. We will fight hard to ensure that so-called data-limited stocks are not cut arbitrarily but are looked at case by case and on the basis of the available evidence, using stock trends as indicators.

I will press hard to establish the principle that, when the science identifies a stock as being one and the same in adjoining areas, there should be an element of flexibility in how the quota may be fished across those areas. That would be available only when quota is held in both areas, to protect historical interests, and it would be key in reducing unnecessary discards by and costs to our fleet. Haddock and saith both fall into that category this year.

The wider policy context for the December council is different this year. Proposals from the Commission are translating many of the strategic goals of the new common fisheries policy. The signs are that next year’s talks, which will establish quotas for the first year of the demersal landing obligation in 2016 as part of the discard bans, will be much more difficult. Before then, we will reach a significant milestone in tackling the discarding of fish when the pelagic landing obligation comes into force in a few weeks, on 1 January 2015. Of course, the introduction of the pelagic discard ban is only the first step. From 2016, the ban will begin to apply to our white-fish and nephrops fleets, and from 2019 it will extend to all quota species.

We all know that the Scottish Government supported action to tackle discards, as did many parties across the chamber and the industry. It is a no-brainer—nobody wants to have to throw perfectly good fish back, dead, into the sea. It is not good for businesses, fish stocks and conservation, and it is certainly not good for the consumer in an age of increasing food security issues.

I know that Scottish fishermen and the onshore sector are worried about the landing obligation and the significant changes that it will bring to their day-to-day practices. We should not underestimate the challenges that they will have to face and the adaptation that will be required across our fleets. It is therefore right and proper that we work as hard as we can at Scottish and European levels to ensure that the landing obligation is introduced responsibly and pragmatically, in a manner that avoids delivering big shocks and damaging our fragile fishing communities.

It is just as important that comparable vessels fishing alongside each other all face or anticipate the same level of monitoring and control of their activities. I make the point time and again to my United Kingdom counterpart that, as we take forward the discard bans, we must have a level playing field. I will look to make sensible use of the flexibilities that are built into the regulations and to take a pragmatic approach to phasing in the new rules.

I am clear that we cannot continue with business as usual. I have spoken about the need to develop 21st century fisheries management tools to deal with 21st century problems. We should not be bound by the current structure, which was created back in the early 1980s. If fishermen are being asked to adapt, fisheries managers must also be prepared to adapt. There is an onus on managers and fishers to innovate and embrace change by balancing responsible fishing with our fleet’s viability. That is the message that I will deliver in Brussels. It is time for us all to roll up our sleeves and step forward together to meet the challenges that we face.

We always seem to face stiff challenges and difficult decisions at the end-of-year fisheries negotiations. That is why, at every negotiation, we should be able to create the best possible conditions to get the best deal for Scotland. Unfortunately, the current constitutional settlement prevents that. It is also unfortunate that the Smith commission’s recommendations barely move us forward on securing the future of fisheries in this country.

The one reference to a fisheries-related topic appears right at the end of the Smith commission report in a proposal to review the current arrangements for raising seafood levies, which have long been frustrating for the Scottish Government because they are outdated and inflexible. We have to get that right if we want to promote Scotland’s fantastic seafood and help the industry.

Believe it or not, the current arrangements stem from the Fisheries Act 1981, which predates Scottish devolution by almost 20 years. As a relic of a bygone age, those arrangements continue to tie Scotland to a dysfunctional UK levy system that seeks vainly to do the impossible job of supporting very different industries north and south of the border, including importers from other countries, which are all in competition with each other. We have to change that system. The Scottish people should have the ability to decide the extent to which Scotland participates in UK levy arrangements, with the freedom—in legislative and in practical terms—to establish separate arrangements north of the border when we consider that it is appropriate to do so.

One other recommendation is relevant to fisheries. The Smith report recommends that, when there is a predominant Scottish interest and the lead UK minister does not attend the EU Council of Ministers, a Scottish minister should by default speak for the UK there. That clearly applies to fisheries and I have no doubt that it was a subtle reference to fisheries.

That proposal is the least that we should expect and it should put an end to the ridiculous situation where I—as Scotland’s fisheries minister with seven years’ experience—have been forced to sit in silence on the sidelines and watch as inexperienced UK ministers and even unelected lords have represented the UK in important discussions that affected Scotland’s fishing industry. That was the case last month, when Rupert Ponsonby, Lord de Mauley, had to be briefed on the most basic issues at the vital negotiations. The decision to draft in an unelected lord with no experience of the issues at stake was an arrogant and insensitive insult that took no account of the mood in post-referendum Scotland.

We need genuine commitments to allow the Scottish minister to lead the development of the UK negotiating position as well as to lead for the UK when appropriate—and I do not mean just when the UK ministers cannot make it or when they decide to leave for the Eurostar or their flight home early.

We were, of course, disappointed by the lack of reference in the Smith report to fisheries.