Rural Development Committee,

Meeting date: Tuesday, May 22, 2001

Official Report 124KB pdf

---

Common Fisheries Policy

Item 2 concerns the common fisheries policy. The committee will consider a report by the European Committee entitled "Reforming the Common Fisheries Policy: a Blueprint for negotiations". Do all members have a copy of the report?

Yes.

The report has been placed on the agenda to allow members to raise any issues that they believe the committee should address and to comment on the report. Would anyone like to comment?

I have read the conclusions and findings of the report. I hope that we will have time to read the evidence in due course.

I welcome the report, which reflects a growing consensus in Scotland that the common fisheries policy is, as the report states, untenable in its current form. Although most people in Scotland think there is a strong case for common management of fisheries in the European Union, the CFP as it stands has failed. Fish stocks have declined and the Scottish fishing industry has contracted. For that reason there is a very strong case for radical reform.

This committee should welcome the report's key finding that zonal management is the way forward. Zonal management amounts to a decentralisation of the common fisheries policy, giving power to the fishermen and scientists in states with historic fishing rights to decide fishing policy in their areas. That is important. If Scotland's fishermen are to sign up to any future CFP, they must feel part of the decision-making process. That is why they must be placed at the heart of it. At the moment, there is a feeling in Scotland that the CFP has no flexibility and that it does not take into account local circumstances or the particular characteristics of the Scottish fishing industry. The CFP must be decentralised and the principle of subsidiarity must be introduced to it.

In a number of areas the report reflects the SNP's long-standing policy. The committee should welcome it and support any move away from a one-size-fits-all fisheries policy that is decided by out-of-touch Brussels bureaucrats to the cost of Scotland's fishing industry.

Like Richard Lochhead, I have not had time to read the whole report, but what I have read was well written and presented. It appears to be a very useful report.

Agenda item 3 touches on the same issues. Richard Lochhead mentioned zonal management. The Executive, while recognising the need for a national strategy, is indicating a desire to bring regional influences and local knowledge to bear more closely on the CFP process. There is a general feeling that a more zonal approach is appropriate.

As the Executive has not yet had time to give a formal response to the report, it might be appropriate for us to invite the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development and Executive officials to one of our meetings to discuss the report and how it relates to their strategic framework.

The Liberal Democrats are delighted with the report, which reflects the Liberal Democrat policy of introducing zonal management. Richard Lochhead has already pointed out that the report is in line with the policy of the SNP. This is the way forward. I congratulate the European Committee on a fine piece of work. The Liberal Democrat group welcomes it.

I agree that there is a great deal in the report that we can welcome.

Like others, I welcome the report. What role will the committee have in the review of the common fisheries policy? Much of our information on that has come via the European Committee. Is there a conflict there? I think that the Rural Development Committee should be the lead committee, but that is perhaps a matter for the Parliament to decide.

That is a sound position. We considered that at one point and wished to inquire into it, but as a consequence of the committee's work load, it was not possible to do so at the time. However, we have an opportunity to take that matter up in the long term. I understand that the report might be debated in the chamber before the recess, so we may have an opportunity to take part in a wider discussion. I take Elaine Murray's point that we might wish to discuss this with the minister at some point.

Are we content to allow the debate to take place in the chamber before inviting the minister to discuss the issue with the committee?

Members indicated agreement.

The boldest statement in the report is to the effect that it is all very well supporting the change to the CFP, but that that will be achieved only by political will on the part of the Scottish Executive. That is why we should get the minister before the committee. It would be useful for the committee and Parliament to know how the Executive will express that political will.

The £27 million package that the Executive gave the industry is a clear statement of how seriously it takes the matter. That package forced England to take similar steps and shows that the Executive has the political will to ensure that the fishing industry has a sustainable long-term future.

The report is well constructed and identifies a number of issues. It is particularly useful that it does not seek to apportion blame for things that have gone wrong in the past but looks to the future and examines how everyone can work together in the industry and politically. I hope that we will bear that in mind when we discuss the report and will try to find constructive solutions.