S2M-798 Fisheries (December Council)

Scottish Parliament

Thursday 22 January 2004

[THE PRESIDING OFFICER opened the meeting at 09:30]

... ... ...

Fisheries (December Council)

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Murray Tosh): The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-798, in the name of Richard Lochhead, on the fisheries council in December 2003, and two amendments to that motion.

11:03

... ... ...

11:53

Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): I listened with interest to the debate that preceded this fisheries debate, during which Mike Watson was spot on when he said:

"the SNP has lots of ideas".

We have lots of ideas to support our fishermen and to ensure that there is a fishing industry in years to come.

In a year when haddock stocks are increasing dramatically and an initial recovery has been seen in cod stocks, whose biomass is 30 per cent up from last year, the restrictions on our industry's ability to catch its life-blood in the North sea—fish—are baffling. Even more baffling is the complexity of the fisheries council's decisions.

Gary Masson of the Northern Producers Organisation Ltd gave members of his organisation guidance from which I will quote. He described several examples that it would be worth while to share with members. He gives the example of a white-fish vessel with a 100mm gear that

"intends to fish round the Fair Isle",

which is outside the cod protection area. He says:

"It may only do so if it carries a permit on board."

Otherwise, any haddocks that are caught in that area will count against the 20 per cent of the quota that is permitted to be caught in the cod protection area.

If that vessel needed to sail east to catch fish, it would have to sail through the CPA. However, a vessel is not permitted in the CPA if it is carrying a permit, so it must return to Orkney or Shetland where the fisherman can offload his permit before he makes his way to the other fishing grounds. If, on his return, he wishes to fish in the vicinity of the Fair Isle, he must once again collect his permit. That would mean a minimum of half a day wasted in steaming time and would be highly dependent on the presence of a fishery officer.

Gary Masson observes that, by default, all vessels that fish in the North sea will be subject to the permit system. A fisherman must not have a permit on board if he plans to fish inside the cod protection area, even if he catches only monkfish or dogfish. If a fisherman fishes outside the cod protection area, he must have a permit on board, even if he keeps a single box of haddocks, because otherwise, those haddocks must be dumped. Members will understand the perplexity of many fishermen at such complex and difficult regulations.

Allan Wilson: That was a wonderful exposition of the permit system. Does the member agree that whether the permit is to fish within or without the cod protection zone, the effect is the same, as the effort is limited within the cod protection zone?

Stewart Stevenson: The problem is that when many of the vessels that do not require or have a permit to catch haddocks, that counts not against the 80 per cent of the quota that is permitted to be caught outside the CPA, but against the 20 per cent that is allowed to be caught in the CPA. I am sure that the minister understands that.

Such a situation leads to discards. We have—rightly—heard the word "conservation" in the debate from many members across the parties. Fishermen are conservationists par excellence. They know that if they do not conserve stocks, their sons and grandsons will have no fish to catch.

The permits are bafflingly complex and require counterintuitive and counterproductive measures. For example, a vessel may not at any time retain on board cod in excess of a limit of 5 per cent. If a vessel fishing for haddocks in the CPA had a first catch of a decent number of cod, that could not be kept against haddocks that would be caught later in the trip. The cod would have to be discarded. That runs counter to the conservation that we earnestly seek.

I will refer briefly to some members' speeches. George Lyon asked for better enforcement. On 6 December, the European Commission congratulated the UK on its enforcement efforts. In fact, Peterhead has more fishery officers than policemen, such is the measure of our effort.

David McLetchie (Edinburgh Pentlands) (Con): Name the officers.

Stewart Stevenson: One is Jim McMurdo.

There is no dispute about stocks, but it is interesting that although the logbook must be used for some legal purposes in connection with the permit, fishermen are not allowed to use the logbook as evidence of what is happening in the catching sector.

Mr Morrison suggested that Mr Swinney was on notice. Mr Morrison had his notice some time ago. He is on the back benches, where he deserves to be. One move more and we will get what we need.

Mr Scott referred to my pelagic fishermen in Fraserburgh and Peterhead. Where was he when they needed a track record to obtain what they needed? He was absolutely nowhere.

I close with an observation on the fishermen's statement that they will break the regulations. If they choose to do so, it is because they have little choice. If we support them in doing so, the reason why is clear. If the choice is between supporting the Executive's shabby deal and supporting fishermen, we will support fishermen every time.

12:00