FISHING leaders have urged ministers to rule out a long Brexit transition for the sector as industry figures meet in Brussels for annual negotiations on fish quotas.
Bertie Armstrong, Scottish Fishermen’s Federation chief executive, said no more than a nine-month “bridge” is required to protect fishing interests as Britain leaves the EU.
He said: “A transition period should be precisely that, not an excuse simply to extend by two years the period during which we are shackled to the utterly inequitable and hopelessly inadequate Common Fisheries Policy (CFP).
“The Prime Minister was clear in her Florence speech that for certain sectors of the economy matters could be settled more quickly than two years and the case for a nine-month ‘bridge’ for the fishing industry is absolutely compelling.”
Armstrong has written to ministers in the Scottish and UK Governments outlining the position.
He added: “At the December Council of European fisheries ministers in Brussels this week, fishing opportunity will be set for member states, including this country, for 2018.
“By December 2019, nine months after we have formally left the UK, we will have attended the series of negotiations setting sustainable fishing opportunity in the north-east Atlantic as an independent coastal state, any other approach would make no sense whatsoever.”
Armstrong said there is no need for a “fishing related cliff-edge” and that a bridge would give “clarity and assurance to the UK fleets and those of the EU member states”.
Meanwhile, Rural Economy Secretary Fergus Ewing has called on the UK Government to ensure the interests of Scottish fishermen are fully represented at the Council today and at which UK Ministers negotiate for the whole of the UK industry.
Next year is last year of the CFP phased implementation of the whitefish stocks landing obligation, stipulating fish must be landed and counted towards quotas.
Scottish Government demands ahead of the Council meeting include, increases in cod by-catch levels in the West of Scotland, more geographic flexibilities for boats to support the landing obligation and adjustments to quotas for West of Scotland prawns and Northern Shelf Ling.
Ewing said: “Scotland is strategically placed to have the biggest and best fishing industry in Europe and is home to one of the largest fishing ports in the UK, so it is crucial the UK Government puts the post-Brexit uncertainty to one side, and focuses on the day job of championing the interests of the sector, both onshore and offshore.
“A good deal would mean more flexibility for both vessels and fish quotas. While we are committed to reducing fish discards, we need to ensure that landing obligations works for Scottish fishermen.
“This is also an opportunity to discuss the future and how we prevent our fleets from being tied up early when the landing obligation is fully phased, and how we can take a more effective and flexible approach post-Brexit.”
Meanwhile, in a separate development on Brexit, Holyrood’s health committee have announced it will hold an inquiry looking at the impact of EU withdrawal on health and social care.
The Scottish Parliament’s Health Committee has issued a call for views on how leaving the EU affect the sector.The committee will focus on how the potential risks of Brexit can be minimised and if there are any benefits which could be maximised. MSPs also want to hear in what ways future trade agreements could impact on health and social care and how common frameworks within the UK should be agreed.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel