Official Report 238KB pdf
Inshore Fishing (Prohibition of Fishing for Cockles) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2001 (SSI 2001/449)
For agenda item 1, I have invited witnesses to give evidence on one of the statutory instruments that we are considering under item 2. I welcome our witnesses: Robert Geddes of the Solway Shellfish Hand Operator Co-operative; Mr Jim Smith, who is a planning officer with Dumfries and Galloway Council; and Nick Bailey and Neil Fleming, who are Scottish Executive officials.
It is Neil Fleming.
I apologise for the mistake.
I am a planning and environment manager for Dumfries and Galloway Council. My council has been involved in the matter since about 1992, when the fishery was first closed to mechanical means of harvesting. My council has taken, and continues to take, an interest because it has an economic development role and is one of the agencies responsible for safeguarding the environment. The council has played a lead role in trying to bring together various interests both from the cockle-gathering side and from the environmental side.
Thank you, Mr Smith. I invite Mr Geddes to speak.
I quote from the letter from the newly formed co-operative. The letter is for the attention of the Scottish Parliament Rural Development Committee and refers to the closure of the Solway cockle fishery. It says:
Thank you very much. Both the witnesses have been commendably brief. Would either of the gentlemen from the Executive like to comment at this stage?
Do you want me to make my introductory remarks, convener?
Yes, please do so.
The Scottish Solway cockle fishery was closed to fishing vessels in 1992 and to tractor dredging in 1994 in the interests of the long-term viability of the cockle stocks and of the populations of birds and wildlife that are dependent on them for food. Hand raking on the Scottish side is the only fishing method that has been permitted since then. All cockle fishing has been banned on the English side of the estuary since 1993.
How long is the closure order envisaged to last?
We intend to revoke the order once a regulating order is in place or when the scientific analysis of the stock shows that it is sensible to reopen.
Does that mean when the management plan comes into being?
It means once the regulating order is made or when the science shows that it is possible to start fishing.
How long will that take? Is the answer that you do not know?
I am afraid that, on both counts, we do not know.
What is the Scottish Executive's estimate of the tonnage of cockles taken by hand gatherers over the past few years?
It is difficult to be precise about that. We have been aware of an increase in the number of hand gatherers over the past two or three years, but the amount taken is highly dependent on such things as the tide and the weather.
Yes, but presumably you have obtained some sort of information about the quantity of cockles that have been extracted by hand gathering in each of the past, say, four years. You must have, otherwise you would have no real idea of whether it is necessary to make the order, because you would not know how many tonnes had been taken in the first place. I have certain figures, but I would like to see what figures you have so that I can compare them.
We have tried to make estimates. Hand gatherers do not need permits and do not have to make returns of the amounts that they gather.
So what are your figures?
The estimates are very difficult. We have heard figures of 1,500 tonnes.
When you say that you have heard figures, you must mean that those figures were given to you by somebody. If so, by whom?
There is a variety of different estimates from different groups of fishermen, from natural heritage organisations and from our own scientists.
I am simply trying to extract a fairly straightforward piece of information. Does the Scottish Executive feel that it has information about the number of tonnes that have been taken by hand gatherers in the area over, say, the past four years?
The short answer is no.
Right. Well, the Solway Shellfish Hand Operator Co-operative has that information. It tells me that, in 1997, when hand raking started again, between 500 and 600 tonnes were gathered. In 1998, the figure was 1,300 tonnes; in 1999, it was 1,500 tonnes. In 2000, nearly 2,000 tonnes were gathered. Those figures show an increase. However, in comparison with the estimates in the Executive note, which says that there is
I shall let Nick Bailey answer that question.
Our surveys are conducted entirely independently of the fishery. The reason why the figures given for the decline caused by hand gathering are different from our estimates is that most hand gathering takes place in the Mersehead sands and Barnhourie bank area, whereas our estimate is for the whole of the Solway—which our remit requires us to cover. We include places such as North bank and Wigtown bay. In our most recent report, we make it clear that at North bank and Wigtown bay there are declines that we cannot attribute straight away to hand gathering—natural causes are involved as well.
I appreciate that this is a complex topic and that we received information on it only today. You have admitted that hand gathering is not necessarily the problem and you have admitted that you do not know the quantities that hand gatherers take, so how on earth can you be so certain that banning hand gathering is the answer?
Would you like me to carry on?
Answer the question, if you can.
Our observations on various visits to the beach indicate that hand gathering is taking cockles from the beach. Various reports by other organisations have attempted to quantify the numbers of people entering the beach at different times, from which the typical amounts raised by an individual hand gatherer can be deduced. Total estimates of around 1,000 tonnes would not be unreasonable—that figure is in line with some of the figures that members have been given. However, the cockle population on the Solway is declining for all sorts of reasons and we are concerned that allowing exploitation is perhaps unwise. That is why the advice is as it is.
Mr Smith has been keen to come in for some time.
The difficulty of providing a clear answer to the member's question on how many cockles have been hand gathered is that no one knows. Hand gathering is completely unregulated. It does not need to be regulated in the current circumstances. No one is regulating the number of hand gatherers on the sands and no one is measuring the catch.
As regards tonnage, we use movement orders for all our cockles. We get those orders from Dumfries and Galloway Council. The documents are there, in black and white.
On that point, I have discussed with my colleagues whether information on the amounts of cockles is available. It is not. Through its environmental health department, Dumfries and Galloway Council provides an order that allows cockles to be shifted. It is not required that the amount of cockles that are moved, or where they are going, be recorded. Therefore, although we have records of when cockles have been transported, we have no record of the amount of cockles that has been shifted in that way. I have asked my colleagues for an answer to that, but we do not have the information.
Mr Geddes, please lean forward into the microphone, as a few members did not pick up what you said. Perhaps you could repeat your answer to the last question.
You asked Mr Smith about a movement order. All the questions about quantities, destination and so on are on the form—everything that you require is there.
It seems that we are being asked to ban an industry and axe 80 jobs on the basis that it is perhaps unwise to continue with it. That seems to be an abysmally insufficient basis on which to axe 80 jobs in rural Scotland.
The figure of 80 jobs has been discussed. It could be higher than that or lower—we do not know precisely how many people have been engaged in the fishery, because of its unregulated nature. In any event, those jobs are likely to go as soon as the cockle stocks fall dangerously below existing levels and gathering cockles on the sands is no longer a viable commercial activity. Because of the unregulated nature of the fishery, the jobs are transitory. We will be able to manage the fishery in a sustainable way only when it can be properly regulated: when total allowable catches can be set; when the share of the fishery can be properly allocated among the various parties; when we know precisely how many cockles are coming off the beds; and when we can introduce a seasonal fishery.
I support that comment. The estimates from our survey indicate that the next two year classes—the young ones that are coming in from the year 1999-2000—are very small. Inevitably, there will be quite a gap in the flow of cockles.
You say that about 80 people are employed. However, I believe that the figure goes up considerably at special times. Those people make, on average, between £30 and £60 per day. I am told that about 2,000 tonnes of cockles are taken, which go to the buyers for export. The value of that to the local economy is about £2 million.
I have a great deal of sympathy for what the member has said. However, we must face the fact that, in 1992-93, a number of fishermen were operating boats and making a living from cockle gathering. When the boats were removed, a number of tractor dredger operators made a living from cockle gathering. Those have since been sidelined and, because of the closure order, they have not been able to participate in the cockle fishery. When we began to put together the management plan for the fishery, we had to take account of the fact that in the early 1990s a number of legitimate fishermen were banned from pursuing their trade. If we had put together a plan that militated against them, that would have been subject to challenge. The fishermen would have had reason to object to the fact that the fishery was being reopened without their being able to play an active part in it. We had to take account of that in the management plan.
I object to what Mr Smith said. I have been a fisherman for 30 years and I was part of cockle gathering when it was done with boats. Ten years down the line, we still cannot fish for cockles, because of the devastation that that caused the first time. Will no one learn the lessons?
I return to the figure of 2,000 tonnes. At the moment, in the area where densities can attract commercial gathering, the biomass is already down to just over 3,000 tonnes. Two thousand tonnes is a significant portion of that. We estimate that the overall biomass left in the Solway is about 6,000 tonnes, which is scattered widely among all the other grounds. We are talking about significant proportions being removed. In any of the other fisheries in the European Union, such figures would be laughed off the table. They would be dramatic proportions to remove.
This is a subject about which I know. I have worked cockle strands informally since my boyhood and I know that people are trying to develop the industry in other parts of Scotland. I appreciate some of the questions that Fergus Ewing asked and why he asked them. I also appreciate some of the responses that officials gave, which relate to the unregulated and informal nature of cockle gathering. If the practice is anything like practice in other parts of Scotland, I appreciate why it is difficult to have a firm grasp of accurate figures.
Resources allow us to conduct an annual survey and that is what we are commissioned to do. We would love to do more surveys in the Solway firth. Most scientists would love to do lots of work in most places. The time series runs back to 1989. We can produce a graph—it is in the report—which sets in context where we are going.
Unfortunately, that report has not been circulated to the committee and members have not had the privilege of reading it.
I am referring to the marine laboratory report. I can make copies available to the committee. I am sorry that I did not bring enough copies for everyone today.
From your experience, if a fishery were to be closed, what would be the recovery rate? What would be the time scale for a proper sustainable recovery?
You will think that I am hedging the question, but I have to say that we know that the next two year classes are poor. Word from the area is that the 2001 settlement is pretty good. It would be unwise to open a fishery and assume that everything will be fine in two or three years' time on the strength of one year class. Ideally we would look for a more balanced year class. At the least, sustainable recovery would take two to three years; beyond that, it would depend on subsequent recruitments. That would still be shorter than the period of the last low cockle abundance, in 1989-90.
I know that scientific evidence of cockle stocks will be important. In the management plan and the business plan for the Solway Shellfish Management Association—the regulatory body—we have indicated that we will carry out additional scientific assessment so that we have twice the amount of information annually. That will supplement the information that is already being gathered by the Scottish Executive team. It is important for us to know that we have the best information available before we set our management regime for the fishing season.
There are two points that I want to clarify. If the management plan allows boats to come in, it will give six boat owners 70 per cent of the TAC.
With every respect, we are not really here to discuss the management plan.
We are talking about biomass. I believe that the drastic figure of a 52 per cent decrease that everyone has grabbed out of the air is wrong. In 1999, there was a 14 per cent increase above the average increase, which has been healthy since dredging stopped. The graph has shown a steady growth. In 2000, the increase was 25 per cent above the average. Now there is supposedly a sudden drop of 52 per cent. That means that we are back at the figures for 1998-99, when we were fishing for cockles with no problem at all. There were no threats of bans in 1998. The overall drop is only 14 per cent. We are above the 1998 figures and the decline is not as serious as has been made out.
I get the impression that we do not have an adequate case for approving the order today. The phrases that are being used, such as "not proven" and "not certain", demonstrate that. I hear that the stock is depleted on North bank and Wigtown bay, but that is not where the extraction is currently taking place. I have not heard of any link between the suspension of the current fishery for cockles and an improvement in the areas of concern—North bank and Wigtown bay.
There can be no certainty about recoveries in any of the areas. It would be unwise for any scientist to make such predictions about any of the cockle stocks around Europe. Recoveries are uncertain things. It is unlikely that transfer of larvae would happen in any of the places that I have mentioned. The adult cockles do not move very much.
What we think we know about the biomass of cockles is based on existing science. Research has shown that stocks last year were about 12,000 tonnes whereas this year they are down to 6,000 tonnes. Even if we use the figures that the gatherers are using of 2,000 tonnes per year, clearly that is a circumstance. Two lines on the graph are going in the wrong direction. We cannot sustain that and that is why the order has been introduced.
The TAC for last year was 2,700 tonnes. That was a conservative estimate—20 per cent—and we did not even touch it. It is unfair that the Executive should condemn us for taking less than its own figures show needs to be taken in order to close us down. The Executive cannot say that its scientific data show that we can take 2,700 tonnes and then close us down when we have got only halfway to that figure. That argument does not hold water.
The population has declined. If we had redone the estimate, the situation for this year would have been different. Any future management plan, whether it is run by the Scottish Executive or a local regulating order, will have to respond to changes. There will be occasions when the fishery will have to close.
My difficulty is simple. I have not yet seen a link established, even in terms of a projected explanation, far less a scientifically rigorous explanation for the closure of the area that is currently being harvested and the restoration of stock in the area that Nick Bailey has identified is causing concern on the North bank and Wigtown bay.
Nick Bailey said that big cockles do not move far, but cockles can move up to two miles. The Solway firth proves that, as its channels constantly change—this year, they moved a mile and a half in a matter of four months, from Carsethorn to halfway across to the east of Caerlaverock. We have seen cockles come in off the North bank two miles away from Gillfoot after a north-easterly gale. On the following day, we find 50 tonnes of live cockles lying on that beach under the sand. I fish there every day, whereas Mr Bailey is looking there 10 days of the year. Surely there must be a balance somewhere.
If that observation is true, I suggest that it supports my argument rather well. We should be looking after those areas because cockles are likely to move to other places, such as North bank.
I was simply responding to the specific identification of the North bank and Wigtown bay as key areas of concern.
The cockles that we take are 30mm plus. They are old cockles; their removal does not affect rejuvenation—apart from the fact that the cockles are predators of the spat. That can be proved without a doubt by the French scientists whom we employed. They have 50 years' experience and they just work with cockles. Their information is readily available—it is there for anybody to see. They work totally as cockle specialists, and we are working with their information. As far as we are concerned, SEERAD has given us information, but it is not conclusive.
We are beginning to get into the technicalities here. We have looked at the French scientists' papers, but they do not say that older cockles do not contribute at all to future recruitment. They say that efficiency is reduced, which we accept. Moreover, two-year-old cockles, which, in the French work, are expected to contribute a significant amount to the recruitment, enter the fishery. Substantial proportions of two-year-old cockles are more than 30mm. We have information from the commercial catch to show that. I am afraid that some of the observations made are not borne out by the facts for the population in question. I suggest that, in observations of what is a highly variable animal, with a biology that varies from place to place, comparisons with cockle populations in France or many other places are not always helpful.
This is a difficult issue for the committee. There seem to be two polarised views—and we received some of the paperwork only this morning. It seems that we are not moving from the position of minimal constraints, as voiced by the hand gatherers, to that of complete closure. For that reason, it is important that we have confidence in the science. I therefore ask why we are moving so suddenly to closure and why there is no provision for some in-between period.
There are quite a lot of questions in there. Who would like to tackle that?
The issue is obviously highly complex. We know that hand gathering is unregulated and that its incidence is increasing substantially—we think that it has been increasing for two or three years. I do not think that anyone suggests that it is not increasing. There is general agreement on that; even the hand gatherers agree. As Mr Lochhead said, a number of different hand gatherers groups are involved and they have different ideas on how the fishery should be managed. However, the increasing number of hand gatherers in a non-regulated fishery provides a good case for closure. Science shows that there has been a substantial decrease in the stock, which is trying to recover from the size difficulties of the mid-1990s. Because we do not have precise figures for the numbers that are involved and because the fishery is variable, it is difficult to give a precise answer.
I am keen to make progress, because we are beginning to go beyond the allotted time.
I am disappointed that fishermen and scientists are so far apart on the matter. I have a simple question. Both the area that is fished and the area that is not fished are monitored. What differences does the monitoring reveal?
Several areas are fished and several are not fished. Different populations have different characteristics. For example, Wigtown bay has an unfished population, in which there is a fairly broad age structure, although numbers of all ages have declined dramatically. The population of the North bank has declined dramatically and is now dominated by a small number of one-year-olds. In the fished area, the commercial year classes are predominant, although they are declining rapidly. Different areas provide different pictures—there is no consistent pattern, which is not unusual for cockles, as they are a patchily distributed organism with a biology to match.
I have been to several aquaculture conferences at which the Association of Scottish Shellfish Growers pushed hard to provide jobs for communities in areas that are close to fishing grounds. It was repeated time and again that there should be coastal management of fisheries, which seems to me to point towards the hand gatherers' case.
I will answer the last point first, if I may. I do not think that anyone is picking on anyone. We are operating now on similar principles to the ones that we operated during the first closures in 1992 and 1994. At that time, there were few hand gatherers, but the decision was taken to close the fishery. We were aware that some hand gathering might take place and we were comfortable that, if it was at a low level, there need not be a problem. The issue was not legislated for at the time. However, the spirit of the advice was that there should be a closure and the stock needed to be looked after. We are in a similar position now.
If there is a drop in the biomass in the first year, that drop will also show in the next year. Why are there more cockles in the second year?
Comparing biomass alone is not the only sensible way of considering the issue. The report also includes an indication of the quantities per kilometre squared. That is because, as Mr Geddes has pointed out, the grounds shift and change. From survey to survey, we are not able to survey exactly the same areas each time. The overall biomass figure is raised to the overall area for that year. A better figure is obtained by considering the abundance or biomass per unit area.
How quickly could we make a regulating order?
The Solway Shellfish Management Association has appointed consultants to prepare an application for the regulating order. The consultants are due to finalise their work by the end of January. We hope to be in a position to submit an application for a regulating order some time early in spring.
All the hand gatherers have left the management plan. There is nothing in it for us. Under the plan, six boats will take the lot. We have advised Mr Smith that we have broken away. The regulating order could be three years away.
As I mentioned, we have not said that the opening of the fishery would depend on the order. It would depend on the science.
I think that we are almost there.
We cannot but deny that. My company has never sent away any cockles. If cockles are being sent to Europe, why are our own authorities not investigating? Nothing is proven.
So you say that it is nothing but a rumour.
It is a rumour. Who can prove it? It is hearsay, which just tries to make the situation our fault. It is scaremongering—I do not believe it for one minute.
We have had a full and thorough session, gentlemen; I thank you all for your evidence and for coming a distance to give it to us.
On the basis of the evidence session, it would be hard to approve the order today. I note that there is a time limit of 23 December, so we have a window, without compromising—
We have to report back on 14 January.
I beg your pardon. It is my little brain. We still have a window though.
I am sorry; it is 21 January.
I am confused enough already.
I am looking at the wrong order.
We have a window within which we could ask that certain things be done. It is clear that the only way of securing a sensible future for the industry in the Solway firth is for there to be a management plan that reflects the current patterns of local employment, but there appears to be no prospect of that happening. The committee cannot instruct the council or the cockle fishers to act in any particular way. However, it is disappointing that there appears to be a breakdown between the council and the cockle fishers.
I have listened carefully to the evidence on both sides of the argument. Nobody seems to dispute the figures that have been presented to us, such as the fact in the Scottish Executive note that the overall biomass of approximately 13,500 tonnes in 2000 was nearly 52 per cent less in 2001. Paragraph 4 of the note states:
We have to use the time that is available before we come to a view on 21 January. I agree with Stewart Stevenson that we are facing a difficult situation. I can appreciate the situation in which those who are prosecuting the fishing find themselves, and I can also appreciate the difficult position that the officials are in.
That would be helpful.
I agree. I would like to see more scientific evidence; I have not heard enough to ban hand gatherers. The idea of a regulation order is a good one, but this kind of fishery should be pushed towards a natural farming system that respects spawning times and gets the best possible added value from the catch. The easiest way to do that is by hand.
My understanding is that that is the purpose of the management plan. The difficulty is how to regulate what is happening until the management plan comes along.
Of course, the management plan refers to boats as well.
Yes.
Although the order is before us, we have been told that it will take some time to pull together a management plan because permission has to be sought from the people who own the seabed. I am a little concerned that there is a conflict there. How can all fishing be banned if that cannot be done without permission? It would be better to produce an order that reduced the number of people who are fishing, perhaps by restricting it to local people, who would need permits. I do not think that the science is behind the approach of banning all fishing, but I also cannot see how one type of fishing can be done with permission and one without permission.
I agree. Clearly, the parties are poles apart. We will not get any new science before 21 January or our next meeting; that is a fact. We can use the breathing space, as has been mentioned by others, to send the Official Report of today's meeting to the people who responded to the initial consultation, and ask them to send in their responses to the issues that have been raised today. We could also encourage the Executive to host a meeting of all the concerned parties to see whether they can come up with a better solution between now and 21 January.
I agree with Alasdair Morrison, Rhoda Grant, Richard Lochhead and Stewart Stevenson. I wonder whether Mike Rumbles was right when he said that no one had queried the estimates of the overall Scottish biomass. I thought that Mr Geddes had done precisely that, but perhaps I misheard his evidence.
That probably meets the wishes of most committee members. We have a slight problem with circulating copies of the Official Report of today's meeting, because it will not be published until 9 January due to the recess. Circulating copies of the Official Report is probably a non-starter.
We have just been informed that the Official Report will not be published until 9 January. We have only one opportunity to discuss the matter—on 15 January. That gives us six days. I do not see what purpose it would serve to delay the decision until then if it is not practical to do so. I would like some guidance on why you are proposing to do that if it is not practical to get any further information.
Further information came into my hands—and into yours—as we sat down for the meeting. We cannot pretend that we have had time to read or digest that information. My thinking is that we should take the recess to read that information.
In light of the fact that the Official Report will not be available until 9 January, I suggest that we invite the minister to withdraw the instrument and resubmit it when he has had sufficient time to consider the matter.
Can we not speed up the Official Report? Are all Official Reports delayed until 9 January?
I will have to ask the clerk.
The Official Reports of most of the meetings that are taking place today and tomorrow are due to be published on either 8 or 9 January.
I am sure that we would be able to speed that up to ensure that the Official Report of this meeting is published first. The Official Report should not be sent to all consultees but only to those people who responded to our previous consultation.
I do not know whether it is fair to put that question to the representatives of the official report who are present. [Interruption.] No, I do not think that it is—looks of horror all round. The clerk has just explained that, when we were dealing with legislation at stage 2, our Official Reports got priority. We are now at the back of the queue, because we are no longer dealing with legislation.
May I press my proposal?
Your proposal is that we ask the Executive to withdraw this statutory instrument until—
For a month, for the sake of argument.
Does that meet with the committee's approval?
We shall ask the Executive to withdraw the instrument. By the end of the week, we will circulate to members any further information that comes to hand. For example, there is an RSPB Scotland report, and we will lay our hands on the marine laboratory report.
I am confused about what that means, convener. If we ask the Executive to withdraw the instrument, does that mean that we are taking a conscious decision not to approve it? I think that there is a distinction.
Yes, there is. We are not approving the instrument, nor are we not approving it. We are asking for a month's delay, so that we can make a more informed decision in the light of information that will be circulated to members in the shortest possible time. We have now concluded our discussion of the Inshore Fishing (Prohibition of Fishing for Cockles) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2001 (SSI 2001/449).
Pesticides (Maximum Residue Levels in Crops, Food and Feeding Stuffs) (Scotland) Amendment (No 3) Regulations 2001 (SSI 2001/435)
The next statutory instrument is the Pesticides (Maximum Residue Levels in Crops, Food and Feeding Stuffs) (Scotland) Amendment (No 3) Regulations 2001 (SSI 2001/435). No members have expressed a desire to speak to the regulations. Are members content with the instrument?
Beef Special Premium (Scotland) Regulations 2001 (SSI 2001/445)
I see that Fergus Ewing is leaving the room. I am sorry to bring you back from what I know is probably a necessary exit, Fergus, but you intimated by e-mail that you had a small concern about the Beef Special Premium (Scotland) Regulations 2001 (SSI 2001/445).
I was just going to speak to one of the witnesses.
Are you suggesting that we should delay our decision on the instrument?
No. I am simply asking the Executive to provide some further information on the points that I have raised. I am not suggesting that we should oppose the instrument or delay our decision.
One is continually being pressurised into explaining why the beef special premium regulations apply only to male animals and not to heifers. I simply raise the point and ask the committee to acknowledge it.
Is the committee content for me to write to the minister and to put those points to him?
On that basis, are we content to approve the instrument?
Does Fergus Ewing want to make a run for it now?
No.
Sea Fishing (Enforcement of Community Satellite Monitoring Measures) (Scotland) Order 2000 Amendment Regulations 2001 (SSI 2001/448)
The final statutory instrument today is the Sea Fishing (Enforcement of Community Satellite Monitoring Measures) (Scotland) Order 2000 Amendment Regulations 2001 (SSI 2001/448).
When the regulation that these regulations amends came into force, it was quite controversial because the industry was asked to pay for the installation of the satellite monitoring equipment on the boats, whereas other European Governments were paying for that. That is why I am sceptical about the new instrument, which seems to gold-plate the regulations in the fishing industry in Scotland. That is an on-going concern that the committee has discussed many times.
Richard Lochhead is quite right. The other member states subsidise the installation of the gear.
I want to reinforce what Jamie McGrigor said about safety. As those of us who represent fishing communities know, safety is the No 1 priority for the skipper and the crew. I therefore suggest that we approve the instrument.
I agree with Richard Lochhead's argument on gold-plating. If the EU does not intend to take any action on the problems that member states are experiencing until 2003 and that results in an unfair burden on our industry, I see no reason to proceed with it.
I must have picked up Richard Lochhead wrongly. Did you suggest that we should agree this regulation?
I put two options to the committee. If we have a mind to pass the regulation, we should also communicate our concerns about it to the Executive. Alternatively, we could postpone passing the regulation until we have a response from the Executive about our concerns. Either way, we should express our concerns to the Executive.
I have no problem with indicating our concerns to the Executive, but we should not delay passing the regulation, which has obvious safety implications. We should do whatever we can to ensure that crews are kept as safe as possible. If we have concerns, we should make them in writing to the Executive.
I support Rhoda Grant's comments, which are sensible. We should pass the regulation and make our points in a letter.
For Rhoda Grant's benefit, I clarify that safety is not the purpose of the regulation. The Government believes that some skippers might not be calling in their position, with the excuse that their equipment has broken down, because they are fishing where they are not supposed to be fishing. The regulation is a policing measure, not a safety one. I am not saying that the Government does not care about safety, but that the regulation is a policing measure.
I am aware that the regulation is not geared towards safety, but there are big safety implications in knowing where a boat is fishing. If skippers are not using their equipment properly and not following the laws, I am not of a mind to defend or support that, especially if that action could put their crews at risk.
From a position of ignorance—being one of the committee members who does not know much about the fishing industry—I ask whether this is not a question of someone who has nothing to hide having nothing to fear?
I do not argue with that. All that I am saying is that the regulation is an example of gold-plating. I expect that the committee would want to express the concern that we are gold-plating in this country because we do not believe that Europe is coming up to the right standards.
I refute the allegation that this regulation is gold-plating; it is not. The Executive note makes that absolutely clear:
I want to draw a line under the issue. Do members agree that we should pass the regulation but write a letter to the Executive that expresses our view that other member states should adopt similar measures?
I intended to suggest that. We should ask the minister to use his good offices to encourage other member states to come up to speed on this matter as fast as possible. Are members content to proceed on that basis?