| Allan Wilson:
I welcome what
has been largely a productive debate. I also welcome the delegates from
Saltcoats Labour club, who have travelled across the country to be here
for the debate. They are men who know the
value of a
good fish supper and who understand that, as Ross Finnie made clear, the
central importance of the debate is long-term sustainability. That must
be our undying goal. I agree with Ben Wallace, Fergus Ewing and others
in hoping that that view will be shared across the Parliament.
The basic fact
is that the Commission's proposals are exactly that—they are proposals.
They are the beginning of the journey and not the end. We must secure a
quality debate and the debate here and in Brussels must be serious and
informed if we are to achieve our aims for the review. Nothing has been
decided or agreed and a great deal of work remains to be done. I do not
need to remind members that there are member states with opposing interests.
Jamie McGrigor, George Lyon and Tavish Scott have explained that such different
interests exist. Those different interests can be tackled in negotiation.
I firmly believe
that we have made a good start. The proposals reflect a lot of our thinking
and they take account of Scottish priorities. They are not perfect, but
they are a lot better than they might have been. Some members—Richard Lochhead
in particular—were obsessing about the distinction between the draft regulations
and the road map. I submit that the broad thrust of the regulations is
positive and there is still the opportunity to fight hard for our interests.
The real reforms are to be found in the draft regulations, which remain
a helpful starting point.
Richard Lochhead:
The minister rightly points out that the battles
lie ahead. The fear in the industry, especially in light of the Commission's
stance earlier this week on the deep-water fishery, is that the regulations
will be watered down as the European Union's southern states in particular
start to shout loudly. Will the minister outline what steps the ministerial
team has taken to build alliances with other member states, so that the
regulations will not be watered down and, indeed, will be strengthened,
particularly with reference to historic fishing rights?
Allan Wilson:
I have raised the United Kingdom flag in international
negotiations at the North sea conference in Bergen. The process is complex.
I had the privilege of leading the UK delegation on the preservation of
blue whiting stocks. There is no doubt that alliances have to be built.
I appreciate that the member does not have such experience and will probably
never get it. The process is difficult.
As I have said,
our priorities are to achieve the best possible deal for Scottish fishermen
and to ensure sustainable fisheries in a healthy marine environment. When
decisions are being made, a difficult balance must often be struck between
short-term difficulties and long-term gains. On the one hand, we have a
vision for the right CFP; on the other hand, we have fishermen who are
often struggling to make ends meet and who have the understandable priority
of landing enough fish to help to pay off debts at the end of the month.
Our job is jointly
to find the right balance so that the industry can get to the future without
destroying the present, but that will involve making some hard decisions.
We must ensure that fleet capacity is more in harmony with available stocks.
The Executive has already taken steps to mitigate the imbalance through
our decommissioning scheme, but we will need to examine carefully whether
further cuts in the fleet are needed. We shall, however, impress on our
neighbours that any cuts must apply fairly across the Community.
Ben Wallace:
I know that the minister sets store by the
Council's regulations, but where do the regulations say that they will
take into account the member state's effort reduction?
Allan Wilson:
Much though he might wish me to do so, I will
not start the negotiations in public with Ben Wallace. The road map discusses
long-term views. The draft regulations, which will be voted on after negotiation,
make it clear that relative stability will stay. We will support only those
cuts that are based on evidence, not those that are made using back-of-the-envelope
calculations, as some of our political opponents would have us do. As Ben
Wallace will surely agree, we must also end the subsidies for new build
and so ensure a more level playing field across the Community.
Winnie Ewing
asked about the timetable. Although the end-year target is clearly ambitious,
the Commission is confident that there will be no legal vacuum at the end
of the year. If necessary, the Council could agree interim measures to
prolong the six and 12-mile derogation.
I want now to
deal with governance, which Ross Finnie did not have the chance to speak
about in any depth. In Scotland, we have worked to bring decision making
closer to those who must live with the consequences of our decisions. Like
all members present, I strongly support the proposal for the establishment
of regional advisory councils, which will advise Governments and the Commission.
The industry is keen to make the regional advisory councils effective.
I welcome the industry's positive approach. The advisory councils will
be as effective as our membership can make them.
I also welcome
one special proposal. The Commission has proposed that each member state
should be able to regulate any EU fishing vessel in that member state's
six and 12-mile limits. At present, member states can regulate only their
own vessels. The proposal is significant because it illustrates a commitment
not only to a more regional approach but to the existing access and resource-management
framework.
I have insufficient
time to deal with the many other issues, such as the science, the ecosystem
approach, the code of conduct, the control and inspection regime and aquaculture.
Enormous challenges face the catching sector, but we should not forget
the contribution that aquaculture can make.
I welcome the
views that have been expressed today, some of which were more predictable
than others, but all of which are welcome. I do not pretend that there
are instant answers to every point. Some issues will require a lot of detailed
consideration and further debate and consultation. From our perspective,
today's input has been helpful.
We cannot, and
should not, hide from the fact that life for the fishing industry will
get harder before it gets easier. As Richard Lochhead said, there will
be pain, but it will be for a purpose. That purpose is the long-term sustainability
and viability of our fishing industry. Sustainability is essential to support
fragile rural communities that depend heavily on the industry.
However, the
contribution that aquaculture can make to thriving rural communities should
not be forgotten, as Alasdair Morrison mentioned. The aquaculture sector
is developing so that it can deal with species such as cod and halibut,
which were traditionally caught on the high seas. The CFP review should
be viewed not as a threat but as a welcome opportunity to integrate aquaculture
more closely into our strategic thinking on fisheries and on the support
of rural communities.
In summary,
as someone who has raised the flag for the UK in negotiations, I believe
that our aim is to deliver a new CFP that will take account of Scottish
needs. We want a new CFP that results in a sustainable and competitive
industry that more closely involves stakeholders in the management decisions
that affect them. We want a policy that is consistent with a sound marine
environment and which is based on sound scientific advice. In short, we
need to get the CFP right.
If we fail,
future generations will judge us harshly. I assume that no one here today
will argue that we can carry on as we are. We must try to ensure that the
final CFP reform package provides for a healthy future for our fish stocks,
for our marine environment and for our fishing industry, which so heavily
depends on them. I therefore commend the Executive's motion to the Parliament,
and ask the Parliament to reject the Conservative and nationalist amendments.
To
read this debate in full, click here
|
