Sea Fishing Industry (Strategic Framework)
The next item deals with the strategic framework for the Scottish sea fishing industry. We have before us a report that was received from the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development. Any comments that members wish to make can be passed back to the minister. According to the document, it is pitched at a strategic rather than a detailed level. Do members think that it provides enough information for us to make any meaningful comments?
I may be wrong, but I detected no mention of zonal management. It would be useful to find out the Executive' s view on that issue.
I will make many detailed comments in writing, but I have a general comment. Although the document is full of good intentions, it is extremely vague. It says that:
"The precise local impact of fishing on the rural economy is difficult to quantify."
That is a vague statement. The report also says that Scottish fish are a minority supply, which I do not agree with. We are told that Scotland has led the way in the strategic framework and that fishing gear selectivity could have a significant impact on the balance between fish stocks and the fishing effort of the fleet.
Gear selectivity is a very important issue to us. The paper says that we must approach the matter from a "sound scientific base", yet it is the Executive that defines who provides the sound scientific base. Further on, the paper says that the goals may require difficult decisions about total allowable catches, but it does not offer a solution. There is no recommendation from the Executive on a whole variety of issues. I will not bore members with the rest of the notes that I have made all the way through the paper.
The document is not concise. It needs much more definition and if we were to discuss it with the minister, we would require a detailed background paper on the various points that are raised.
Ultimately, we may wish to discuss the document with the minister. However, if members have points that can be put in writing, we could put those directly to the minister to encourage the Executive to produce a more detailed paper.
I echo many of Margaret Ewing's comments. I suppose that we should be thankful that, after two years, the Executive has finally got round to producing a strategy for Scotland's fishing industry. The document is full of warm words, but is missing much detail.
Margaret Ewing made an important point about the social and economic role of Scotland's fishing industry. The paper mentions 15,000 jobs in the industry and suggests that the Executive is unable to quantify how many more related jobs there are. Most people recognise that about 25,000 jobs in Scotland are dependent on fisheries. More work needs to be done to identify the economic benefit of fishing to Scotland—it is very important to many of our smaller communities.
On the subject of smaller communities, there are more warm words in the strategy about the importance of protecting smaller coastal communities in Scotland. There are huge threats hanging over Scotland's small fishing communities, but the paper makes no reference to what those threats are or what solutions there might be. Finding solutions is crucial to the viability of the many fishing communities around Scotland.
Like Mike Rumbles, I noticed that the document does not refer specifically to zonal management. That is extremely surprising given the importance that we understand all parties are paying to the introduction of zonal management. When we advocate zonal management we must be clear as to whether we advocate a talking shop of advisory bodies or bodies that have delegated decision-making powers. That is what the European Committee report recommends. It is an extraordinary omission from the strategy document. However, perhaps we would benefit from the earlier suggestion that the Executive give evidence and answer some of the questions that have emerged today.
According to page 6 of the document, we are seeking to implement the precautionary approach to fisheries management. There are many more detailed analyses of that approach, such as the one that Hugh Allen gave to the European Committee. In his submission to the European Committee he says:
"we suggest that a better principle would be to proceed with caution",
rather than simply advocate the precautionary principle. That is just one example and I am sure that there are many others.
The main point is that we should take up the Labour party's suggestion that the ministers come to the committee to explain themselves.
That was not the Labour party's suggestion. Despite the fact that I am a member for a marginal constituency, I am not here representing a party position—unlike some people. I made the suggestion because I seek further clarification. For example, when the Executive says that it wishes
"to bring regional influences and local knowledge more closely to bear on the CFP process",
I want to know whether it is talking about zonal management. That is why I suggest that we consider how the strategy relates to the Executive's response to the European Committee's report. Despite the imminence of the general election, we should try not to play party politics in the committee.
We can ask the clerk to draft a letter to the minister covering the issues that were raised today, along with any further issues of clarification that members draw to our attention in the immediate future. Once we receive a detailed response, we could take it as the basis on which to proceed in the longer term. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.