Justice 2 Committee, 04 Mar 2003

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 4, 2003

Official Report 156KB pdf

---

Petition

---

Fishing Industry (Fixed Quota Allocations) (PE365)

Item 1 is on petition PE365, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to review fixed quota allocations with a view to ascertaining with whom the property rights to Scotland's fish stocks lie. The petition has also been referred to the Rural Development Committee for its information in view of its inquiry into issues that face the Scottish fishing industry.

Members may well ask why the petition has been referred to the Justice 2 Committee. The answer is that the petitioners ask specifically about property rights in relation to Scotland's fish stocks, which is part of our justice and home affairs remit. I hope that members have had a chance to read the clerk's note—J2/03/06/1—and I invite members to comment on the action that we could take.

Members will know of my close personal interest in fishing matters. I will make a couple of observations. One of the options that the clerk's note gives is to refer the petition back to the Public Petitions Committee. I understand that that is a mechanism by which the petition can remain live for successor committees when the Parliament reconvenes in May. I propose, for reasons that I will come to, that we should take that action. It may also be useful for the committee to write to the minister to ask some questions that arise from the papers that we have in front of us and from developments that are not covered in the papers.

The first substantive paragraph in the letter from the Executive of 11 June 2001 states:

"FQA units … are associated with fishing vessel licences".

That is the important point that leads to some of the difficulties that the petitioner—Iain MacSween, on behalf of the Scottish Fishermen's Organisation—and many others have with quotas. That association with fishing vessel licences is, as far as I am aware, not clearly defined; indeed, no one in the industry thinks that it is clearly defined. As a matter of policy, successive Governments have said that quotas are not tradeable. However, in practice, successive Governments of one complexion or another have allowed vessel licences to be turned back in—decommissioned—by and large in exchange for value, but with the quota remaining the property of the skipper who previously held the fishing vessel licence. Subsequently, that quota can be transferred to other people.

There seems to be a discrepancy in the policy statements. It would be useful to ask the minister—I suspect that we are talking about Ross Finnie rather than Jim Wallace, but it might be useful to copy the letter to them both—to clarify the Scottish Executive's view on the association between fixed quota allocations and fishing vessel licences and to state what has changed since 11 June 2001. That answer will inform our successors in determining how they wish to respond to Iain MacSween's petition.

My second point is that Shetland Islands Council has been buying quota to make available to its vessels. That is a well-established process, although it is currently under legal review, so the minister may not want to comment on it. Nonetheless, we should still put the question on the table. Perhaps after the legal case is concluded the minister will be in a position to inform our successors. That is the way in which I would like the committee to deal with the petition. Other members may have other views.

The issue is a complex and difficult one. We have all been concerned about the impact of recent events on fishing communities. I am unsure whether we can progress the matter, because time is running out and a decision must be made elsewhere before we can proceed usefully in any particular direction.

My view is that the petition should be put on the back burner, pending decisions on outstanding matters. We would then be able to pursue the issue further. Stewart Stevenson has made some good points, but I am a bit dubious about whether the Justice 2 Committee should proceed along the lines that he suggested. I would have thought that the Rural Development Committee should deal with the matter. However, I am anxious for the petition not to fall between two stools.

When I attend the Rural Development Committee meeting this afternoon, I might invite the convener to suggest to the committee that the petition should remain open.

The Rural Development Committee and the Justice 2 Committee could consider the petition from their different points of view. Perhaps Stewart Stevenson can assist us and explain why the petitioners are keen to establish with whom the property rights to Scottish fishing stocks lie. How would resolving that question assist the petitioners?

As members will be aware, a £50 million support package for the fishing industry is on the table; £40 million of that is for decommissioning, which is mainly targeted at the white-fish fleet. Parliament will debate the matter tomorrow. Decommissioning would substantially reduce the fishing fleet, but it will not decommission the quota amount, which will be unchanged. The fishermen fear that, if it is legal for quota ownership to be transferred to foreign nationals, Spanish, Danish and other foreign vessels will, when the fishing stocks recover, fish what our fishermen regard as our fish. Obviously, I concur with that view. Iain MacSween is using the petition to keep the issue in play.

I want to assist the petitioner in taking the matter further. I think that members' views are that we should keep the petition on hold in some way so that a successor committee, or successor committees, can take up the matter. The suggestion is that we refer the petition back to the Public Petitions Committee, which would allow the petition to be held in abeyance so that the successor petitions committee can determine where the petition should go. Do members agree that we should take that course of action?

Members indicated agreement.

That is noted.