Rural Affairs Committee, 05 Oct 1999

Meeting date: Tuesday, October 5, 1999

Official Report 217KB pdf

---

British Fishery Limits (Scottish Zone)

If we remember the committee meeting on 29 June, according to the minutes, we agreed

"to assess the scope for investigation of the impact of changes to the Scottish Fisheries Zone following executive consultations with the industry."

A letter from Derek Feeley, assistant fisheries secretary in the Scottish Executive rural affairs department, dated 13 September, shows that those consultations have now been completed. It would therefore be appropriate for us to consider the matter again, as we deferred it on 29 June.

The first option that I will put to members is that we accept the view that the matter has been examined adequately, and that there is no further scope for change. Are there any other comments or suggestions on how we might proceed?

I do not think, frankly, that that is what has happened. In the letter, Mr Feeley says:

"I hope this is helpful".

That is not the word that I would have used to describe it. The matter has gone back to the minister, and he says that he confirms his original decision, which is hardly surprising. That is not adequate. We should examine the earlier, alternative idea of having a quick look at the situation.

The basis on which we do that is as follows: it has been patently obvious from on-going press articles and campaigns that, in the intervening period, the fishing industry feels that the issue will not go away, that it has not been resolved to fishermen's satisfaction, and that questions still need to be answered. If we are to listen to the views of the fishing industry, we must do something proactive, along the lines that we suggested earlier: our own inquiry into the matter.

A delegation from the fishing fraternity attended an early meeting of the Rural Affairs Committee. Members of that delegation were in do doubt that they had concerns about the new boundary, particularly as they had little knowledge that it was to be introduced. They left the meeting with the impression that we supported them in their attempts to have the boundary redrawn to its original position. At that time, we took the view—and I certainly said it at the meeting—that we should lend them every support.

This was one of the first pieces of legislation to come before the Scottish Parliament and was not even discussed before its implementation. It will be a test of the Scottish Parliament's credibility if we let this slip. The committee should do everything in its power to engage others in the debate so that, eventually, the original boundary is restored.

I disagree with a couple of those points. It is not true that that legislation came before the Scottish Parliament. The matter was debated in the Scottish Parliament and, as we noted at our previous discussion, the outcome of that debate was to support the order that the House of Commons had passed. I also think—the convener will correct me if I am wrong—that the meeting to which Mr Munro referred was a meeting of MSPs, many of whom had an interest in rural affairs, rather than a meeting of the Rural Affairs Committee. The only consideration of the matter in this committee took place on 29 June.

Alasdair said that he felt that the response from the department was unsatisfactory, but the minister—as we requested—has progressed the matter and has met the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. The secretary of state has also met the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and Hamish Morrison from the federation has been kind enough to share with me copies of his correspondence that arose from that meeting.

The federation does not appear to have met the secretary of state's request for it to indicate areas of material disadvantage arising from the order that would cause him to review the application of the order. If committee members have information to the contrary, I would be interested to know about it.

The federation appears still to be seeking reassurance on several issues, particularly those arising from debris from abandoned installations, of which there are three in the area in question. Those concerns are significant to the federation.

With regard to the interests of this committee and the Parliament, I do not see what further discussion would achieve. It is quite clear from the evidence before us that the matter has been explored in some detail by the rural affairs department and by the secretary of state at Westminster. There is nothing further to be done in terms of influencing the secretary of state on the proper place for that order.

I am not suggesting that we cease to have any interest in the matter, but at this stage, the federation is putting forward nothing with which the Parliament can materially assist.

Lewis has covered most of my points. We have many important matters to consider on which we can make a difference, and I do not see how much more of a difference we can make. The matter has been debated, and as Lewis said, the secretary of state has spoken to the fishermen about it. It is not in our gift to change this and I do not see what a further inquiry will achieve.

My colleague Euan Robson, MSP for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, whose constituency is affected directly by the issue, has asked me to point out to the committee that there is a substantial inaccuracy in the letter from the assistant fisheries secretary. The letter says:

"The Parliament passed a motion on 3 June 1999 supporting the Order".

It did not. The Parliament passed a motion on 3 June 1999 noting the order. We want to put the official who wrote the letter right on that important point. The Parliament did not support the order.

I am happy to second what Mike Rumbles has just said—I noticed that as well.

The official's point might be that we turned down the opportunity to reject the order.

I hope that I will not get into too much trouble if I say that, although there are not many issues that unite the fishing industry, this is certainly one of them. From media coverage over recent weeks—even just last week—it is evident that the fishing industry is united in its campaign to reverse the boundary change. Given that the committee already has a short investigation into that matter on its agenda, the least that it can do today is commit itself to an investigation in the very near future.

We do not know what has been happening in the background. Lewis Macdonald speculates about what might have happened at a meeting between the Secretary of State for Scotland and the fishermen, but we still do not know what took place there. All that we have is a letter from a civil servant, telling us that the Scottish Executive relayed the fishing industry's concerns. We do not know what that means. It would be useful to find out from the minister how he went about relaying the industry's concerns, and to hear evidence from the fishing industry about why it thinks that this is a key issue.

I am disappointed that Lewis thinks that we cannot influence the secretary of state; I am sure that he is open to influence from committees such as ours. If the cause is worth pursuing, we should not give up after a first attempt, but try again. This need not be a big diversion from our other activities. We are not proposing a mammoth inquiry, but are taking evidence from one or two individuals. I hope that we can hold a small inquiry into the matter.

I welcome Euan Robson, who arrived during our discussion. If he wishes to contribute an opinion, he is welcome to do so.

The note that the committee received from the Scottish Executive suggests that the Parliament approved the order. I do not recall the exact phraseology and have only just had the opportunity to read the letter, but I do not think that that was what Parliament did on 3 June. The Parliament simply noted the text of the order and made a number of comments relevant to it. To imply in the letter that Parliament accepted the order is not consistent with the text of the motion as amended on 3 June. The committee might want to correct that wrong impression on the part of the Executive. That is all that I wanted to say at this stage. Thank you for the opportunity.

My memory is not my strongest feature, but I remember that debate quite lucidly. There was considerable disquiet about the order in general terms, but the Parliament was to some extent mollified—against its will—by the minister's assurance that he would meet the Scottish Fishermen's Federation the next day to discuss that disquiet. I am not particularly satisfied by the letter and support the call for a limited inquiry into what has been happening.

We have to consider what we want the outcome of any inquiry to be. Obviously, with some of the inquiries that we are considering there is the possibility of bringing forward legislation and changing the way in which we operate to take on board some of our findings. In this case, it is unlikely that we will be able to do that.

I notice that the Deputy Minister for Rural Affairs has had discussions with representatives of the fishing industry. There may be a case for asking him to come to talk to us about what he felt the result of his discussions were.

Would you like to say anything else, Lewis?

There may be some merit in that. I do not think that many people in the Scottish Fishermen's Federation would disagree if I were to say that, while people may be concerned about this issue, the fishing industry in Scotland faces many larger issues over the next few years. The committee has made a commitment to examine fisheries strategy to help the industry.

I notice that those who are saying that there should be an inquiry have not come forward with any material area of continuing concern. As Alex Fergusson said, there were concerns at the time of the debate, many of which, as far as I am aware, have been aired. The question remains: what are the material concerns that have not yet been answered? I have not heard anything in the discussion to answer that. If it is felt that there are continuing concerns, perhaps those can be addressed in our discussion on fisheries strategy.

This has nothing to do with fisheries strategy. It is a totally different issue, and is not strategic in that sense.

Can you tell us what it is to do with, in this context? If it is not connected with the future of the fishing industry, why do you want us to investigate it?

It is connected with the future of the fishing industry, in the sense that anything to do with fishing is connected with the future of the fishing industry. I do not think that it fits neatly into a consideration of the strategy for the future of the fishing industry. It is a one-off issue that must be examined on its own.

Lewis said that the fishing industry might think that there are bigger issues, but it thinks that this issue is urgent and wants it dealt with as soon as possible. It is committing funds and resources to campaigning on this issue. All the fishing organisations that make up the federation are united on that. It is not just the industry that is concerned; the fishing communities have also voiced their worries.

I will express my views at this point, although members should feel free to disagree with them. On 29 June, this issue was topical—it was presented to us as a topical issue. We decided to defer discussion and await the letter, which we have now received—it is dated 13 September.

It is important to note that the fishing industry, represented by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, felt at the time that it wanted to raise a number of issues. Because of our decision to defer discussion, we did not at that time take heed of any of those issues and did not involve ourselves in a debate with the fishing industry. Now that we have the report, it appears—this is largely an assumption—that the Executive and the Scottish Fishermen's Federation have taken different positions, so it would be appropriate for this committee to hear the federation's views. At that stage, we could decide whether we investigate further. Would that be considered an appropriate course?

May I suggest, to prove that compromise can come from any direction, that we encapsulate what you said and what Dr Murray said, and invite the federation and the minister to address us? That would constitute our further investigation into the matter. Members have spoken about a short, sharp inquiry. Would that satisfy those who want a short, sharp inquiry?

Are we asking them to come here?

We would ask the Scottish Fishermen's Federation to express its continuing concerns and ask the minister to respond to those in the forum of this committee.

To respond to us?

Yes, to respond to us following the questioning of those concerned.

I, too, am willing to offer a compromise. I believe that Lewis's suggestion is credible. In our investigation into the shellfish issue, we had an array of representatives from across the industry and I think that that was productive. If we proceed along the same lines, with representatives from the ministry—preferably the minister—and from the federation, that would be adequate.

Would it be fair to say that having the investigation in that format would mean asking each side to present their views? If so, we would then more fully understand the matter and act accordingly, should we see fit.

Members indicated agreement.

Before we leave this issue, convener, please will you write to the assistant fisheries secretary to point out his error?

We have a copy of the minutes of proceedings here that we could analyse, given a moment. Did you have an opportunity to read it?

Some action needs to be taken to put this right.

The minutes of the meeting of the Parliament on Thursday 3 June record that Ross Finnie moved a motion beginning with:

"That the Parliament notes that".

The motion then describes the statutory instrument and other matters. An amendment in the name of Mr Salmond was moved by Richard Lochhead. The amendment was to

"Leave out from ‘notes' . . . to end"

and to substitute other words. That amendment was disagreed to. Another amendment was moved by Euan Robson, and it was agreed to. The outcome was that in essence the Parliament noted the contents of the motion.

That is correct, so a letter needs to be sent to Mr Feeley to point out that his reply was incorrect.

We will write to him to confirm that. Thank you to the runner who got the copy of the paperwork.

Parliament noted the situation; it did not accept the order. That is the point that the committee member wishes to be taken up with the Executive.

I thank the committee for its courtesy in allowing me to be here.

Before we leave this subject, would it be appropriate for us to invite the minister and representatives of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation to a meeting and to ask one side and then the other to present their views and answer the committee's questions? In what time scale should we organise that meeting? Our next scheduled meeting is on 2 November. Would it be appropriate to fit the meeting with the minister and the SFF into that day's business?

Members indicated agreement.

If, for any reason, it is not possible to arrange the meeting with the minister and the SFF for that date, would the earliest possible subsequent date be appropriate?

Members indicated agreement.

Should we respond to the letter?

Yes. I will respond to the letter to point out the inconsistency—as highlighted by Euan Robson—and to make the minister aware of the process that we have decided to enter into.

Will the format of the investigation be the same as that for the shellfish investigation?

On the day, it may be appropriate to take the line that one side will be allowed to present its views and then answer questions, after which the other party will do the same. I am open to suggestions on the order in which they should appear.

The shellfish investigation was useful, because we heard evidence from both of the witnesses and then asked questions of them.

I agree.

That enabled us to take on board what each of them said.

I would be interested to hear other views on how the meeting should be conducted.

What are we saying about the shellfish issue?

I was suggesting that we follow the same format as we did in the shellfish investigation, when we took evidence from both the witnesses and then asked questions.

Excellent.

I am open to suggestions on this matter, but if we feel that the previous method was a success, we will repeat it.