Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Amendment (Scotland) Bill
Tavish Scott is here to speak to the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Amendment (Scotland) Bill, which has been lodged in his name. The bill was introduced on 8 March. The Parliamentary Bureau has officially referred it to this committee and I ask Tavish to explain some of the background to us.
Thank you, convener. This is probably the only time that I will get to sit in a ministerial chair, and I will not be taking any questions from J F Munro after the broadside that he launched last time round.
As I am sure many members will be aware, the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Amendment (Scotland) Bill is a measure that Westminster considered a couple of years ago. Due to a variety of procedural mechanisms, it was not allowed to proceed, despite having—I am pleased to say—all-party support.
The bill's aim is to remove an unnecessary source of conflict in existing fisheries legislation, which sets fishermen against shellfish farmers. If a shellfish farmer wishes to take control over an area of sea bed on which to farm shellfish, he may apply for a several order. If he is successful, he wins control of that area and others cannot then fish his stock.
Under the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967, a several order bans all fishing within the area that it covers. Clearly, such a ban is necessary to prevent someone from fishing a farmer's stock, but the ban also prevents anyone from fishing for other species within the area. For example, a creel fisherman fishing for crabs and lobster may be excluded from an area that he has traditionally fished despite the fact that his fishing would in no way damage the interests of the shellfish farmer.
As a result, the conflicting interests have had to put their case to a public inquiry. Invariably, at the end of the process, either the fisherman or the shellfish farmer loses. It has therefore been the contention of the industry that a better way needs to be found of dealing with such conflicts.
The bill will amend the 1967 act to allow Scottish ministers making a several order to authorise the continuation of specified, non-damaging fishing operations within the area covered by the order. The aim of the bill is thus to prevent unnecessary and avoidable conflicts of interest between shellfish farmers and fishermen. I stress that, under the bill, not all conflict will be avoided. In some cases, opposition to several orders comes from fishermen who dredge for scallops. Such an activity would be regarded as damaging to the shellfish farmer's interests and would not be permitted.
Encouragement for the bill has come from the Association of Scottish Shellfish Growers. I have also informally consulted, among others, the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, Scottish Natural Heritage and the Highland Council's fisheries officer. As yet, I have not received any comments opposing the bill.
The Rural Affairs Committee will be considering its own formal consultation, but I was pleased that Scottish Natural Heritage said that it supported the aims of the bill, as it supports scallop farming, which it believes to be
"more environmentally benign than scallop dredging".
I am also pleased to report that the bill has been given the support of the Scottish Executive. The fact that the bill will cost the Executive nothing and should reduce public inquiry costs has, I am sure, nothing to do with that support.
As I said, the bill has received support from MSPs of all parties. I hope that it will continue to be seen as free of party politics—which may not be true of all measures that members have to consider. Its aim is to make a small but useful amendment to our legislation. I hope that, in recognising the non-contentious nature of the bill, members will allow it a speedy passage.
The committee must consult on the matter, but I remind members that considerable work has already been done and consultation has been carried out, including when the measure went through the House of Lords and the House of Commons. I suggest that the consultation carried out by the committee as part of the statutory process should be brief and to the point.
I congratulate Tavish on introducing this matter—it is one of the less controversial fisheries issues that the committee has discussed. When was there conflict in the past?
Conflicts in the past related to the need to set up public inquiries and to whether the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967 required them. Members who represent the west coast of Scotland will know that that happened on several occasions. The inquiries were expensive and, ultimately, futile, because they did not solve the problems. That is why the bill has such support and encouragement from the associations that are principally concerned with that fishing activity.
I am not sure whether I should declare an interest as one of the members who signed the bill. Were there any objections when a similar bill went through Westminster?
I am not aware of any objections to the bill from the public or outside organisations. The only objection came from one particular MP. I will not go into that because it is history and should be left that way.
Are there any other questions? It seems not—the bill must be uncontroversial.
We must now set a schedule for consultation. The committee has already suggested that it would like to take evidence on 25 April. It would be appropriate for us to open a consultation period before that to receive relevant comments. I strongly suggest that the consultation period should begin tomorrow and end on 12 April. That fits with the holiday requirements of the clerking team and allows three weeks for representations to be made to the committee.
Does that suggestion meet with the committee's approval and do we agree to take evidence on 25 April on the issues raised by the bill?
Members indicated agreement.
We can now allow Mr Scott to return to the European Committee.
Thank you.
In connection with the matter, the papers for today's meeting include a list of names of people whom we think it would be appropriate to approach for consultation. Are members satisfied with that list? It is proposed that we approach those on the list as part of the consultation exercise and that we launch the consultation publicly in order to inform those who are not on the list that the consultation has begun. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.