Official Report 341KB pdf
Inshore Fisheries (Management) (PE1386)
Agenda item 2 is consideration of PE1386, which was lodged on behalf of the Torridon nephrops management group and is on inshore fisheries management. I refer members to paper RACCE/S4/12/13/1 and invite comments.
I have read the paper and I still have a number of questions. I do not feel that the questions have all been explored in detail or answered; perhaps expecting that would be unrealistic, given that the issue has gone on for many years. I need further information to reach a conclusion. I do not know where that leaves the committee in terms of options.
I agree with Annabelle Ewing. Coming to this afresh, I have a number of unanswered questions such as “What is the extent of the conflict?” Perhaps you can shed some light on such basic issues, convener, given your local knowledge, but it would have been useful to have had that information.
When the agreement was made that there should be no trawling in the inner area of Loch Torridon, the intention was that there would be a certain amount of creeling activity. Unfortunately, there was overfishing with creels and the marine stewardship certificate was lost as a result. There were also arguments from some trawling interests from Gairloch, Kyle and so on—not very far away—that they would be as careful about what they fished for as the creelers were, given their overfishing behaviour and the ability of people to come from elsewhere to creel there.
If the matter is going to be addressed in the proposed aquaculture bill, it is essential that we obtain as much information as we can prior to the introduction of the bill, because we will have to make a decision at that time. It is imperative that we seek additional information, as Annabelle Ewing and Graeme Dey have suggested, prior to that. At the moment, we are unable to move forward with the petition apart from by gaining more information.
This is also an issue in my constituency, for obvious reasons. As Annabelle Ewing rightly said, the conflict has been going on for many years—since fishing was invented, I suspect. That does not make it less of a problem, however, and I appreciate the concerns that the Torridon group has expressed. I am struck by the Scottish Government’s response to the committee’s original query, which stated that
We would have to decide whether we were contributing to the process by being in contact with the inshore fisheries groups and showing a proactive interest in finding a solution that the forthcoming bill is likely to be able to cope with and that is within the powers of Marine Scotland. Slow progress is being made towards marine management in local areas. The speedier that progress is, the better, and our work would try to aid that process. There is still a conflict between inshore fisheries groups and marine management, which we must address. At present, when there is an argument between creelers and trawlers, fishermen also need to have presented an overview of how the stocks might be managed in the longer term. The creelers were trying to ensure that there was a sustainable fishery there, and that is a good base from which to take the matter forward.
So you feel that any work that we do would be complementary to that other work.
To sum up, yes—absolutely.
Our work might also serve the purpose of further informing the committee on the overall issue. To that end, would it make sense, if the work programme permits, to look favourably on option 3 at the end of the paper, but to extend the suggested invitation to people other than the petitioners so that we can consider all sides of the argument?
It would be interesting to have a round-table session on the specific issue. We are interested in offshore fish farming and angling interests, which might be another area for us to consider. We could get those people together, if they wish to come, on one of the days that are not taken up with anything else. That way, people would feel that they were getting a hearing without our necessarily saying that we were dealing finally with the petition. Instead, we could continue our consideration of the petition as part of the lead-up to the forthcoming bill.
I just feel that hearing simply from the petitioners would not inform us properly. We need to know about all sides of the argument.
We need to do more work on the petition. The proposal is to write to the petitioners to seek their views, but you suggest that we expand that and include a range of people, which would include the inshore fisheries groups and Marine Scotland.
In view of the Scottish Government’s points, I support Graeme Dey’s suggestion. Our paper points out that the Government has stated:
We could ask the Scottish Parliament information centre for a list of suggested witnesses for such a round-table session. I take members’ point about a lot of other people being involved, not only the petitioners. The approach might be a good way to develop option 3 in the paper. In that way, we could involve the Government and Marine Scotland in the process. That would give a clearer picture for the many of us who do not have first-hand knowledge of the issue.
I support that approach as a general way forward, but I have a question, convener. You mentioned conflicts between anglers and netters, for example. There are obvious conflicts in the sea when people chase the same fish. Do we want the round-table discussion to be wide enough to capture all interests, which might not be wise, or would we prefer it to engage with the particular issues in the petition?
The member might not be aware of haaf-netting and things like that in the Solway Firth.
The question is how wide we want to make the discussion.
At this stage, we must focus on the petition and specifically on the relationship between creelers and trawlers in the Loch Torridon area, the general health of the fishery and the environment and biodiversity.