Subordinate Legislation
Inshore Fishing (Prohibition of Fishing for Cockles) (Solway Firth) (Scotland) Order 2011 (SSI 2011/319)
Let us proceed rapidly with agenda item 4, which is subordinate legislation. The committee has to consider three negative instruments, as listed on the agenda. Members should note that no motions to annul have been received in relation to the instruments. I refer members to committee paper RACCE/S4/11/6/2. The first instrument is the Inshore Fishing (Prohibition of Fishing for Cockles) (Solway Firth) (Scotland) Order 2011 (SSI 2011/319). Is the committee agreed that it does not wish to make any recommendations in relation to the instrument?
As I intimated to the clerk earlier in a telephone call, I have some reservations about the order. I do not, at this stage, wish to move a motion to annul, but I have a number of concerns, not the least of which is the handling of the matter by the Government and the late laying of the order.
The Government stated in its response to the Subordinate Legislation Committee that it has been engaged in discussions with stakeholders. I would like to know whom those discussions were with, where they led and why the parties were unable to reach agreement. There is a considerable lack of detail in the Government’s response. The subject is one that my constituents are not slow to raise with me—I am sure that Elaine Murray’s are the same—yet I have not had representations from any of the stakeholders who have been involved in the discussions, although Dr Murray might have had. Therefore, I would like more detail on the discussions before I am prepared to rubber-stamp the instrument.
Back in the first session of Parliament, I think, the issue was discussed extensively by a predecessor committee. It received considerable evidence—although I appreciate that it was not entirely scientifically based—that there was potential to have a sustainable cockle-fishing industry on the Solway, especially if it were confined to hand gatherers. There was talk of up to 100 permanent jobs being possible in the area.
One of the problems of cockle fishing, of course, is policing. Paragraph 2 of the committee paper states that,
“unlike the 2006 Order, this Order does not allow hand gathering of cockles for personal consumption. This is so that the Order can be enforced as effectively as possible.”
Frankly, given the length of the Solway coast and the lack of any resident policing authority along it, that will be impossible to police.
One of the problems, over the past number of years, has been the lack of policing of what has been happening, with the result that there is considerable local evidence of poaching and related issues. That has meant that the Solway Shellfish Management Association, whose remit was to regulate the fishery and to encourage a sustainable fishery, has, regrettably, completely failed to do so. There are several reasons for that. For instance, it is the only area in Great Britain in which suction dredging from boats is still allowed, which I find strange because the practice is very environmentally damaging.
A number of issues relating to the order, should, I feel be put to the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment before he comes before the committee. I am totally happy with and understand the Government’s thinking, but I find it worrying that we are being asked to agree to what is supposed to be a temporary order that has no time limit on it—the previous order had a time limit on it. The Government has given reasons for that, but I do not find them entirely convincing. I seek more detail from the Government on the reasoning behind the statements that it has made in its letters to the Subordinate Legislation Committee and others.
I concur. A lot of questions remain unanswered. As Alex Fergusson has said, the instrument is intended to be a temporary measure, but it does not seem to contain any provisions to achieve that objective. Paragraph 6 of the Executive note states:
“Once Marine Scotland Science has determined that stocks have recovered sufficiently, and subject to the requirements of relevant environmental legislation ... the fishery can be fully or partially reopened.”
When will Marine Scotland Science undertake that work? Who will agree an appropriate management regime? Unlike the 2006 order, the instrument prohibits the hand gathering of cockles for personal consumption and justifies that by saying that a blanket ban will allow effective enforcement. Is there any evidence that the provision in the 2006 order presented an obstacle to effective enforcement? A number of questions remain unanswered and we should write to the minister for clarification.
I agree with the Government—the last thing that I want is the reopening of an unregulated cockles fishery on the Solway. This is not just about the stocks; it is also about the danger to human beings. Even when the regulated fishery was reopened, some of what we saw was horrendous. There was a lot of poaching. People were turning up in inflatable boats, having to be rescued and then going straight back out again. The impetus for people is that the product is so valuable. Once a fishery is open it is extremely difficult to control. There were a lot of issues previously, and I am with the Government in not wanting to reopen an unregulated fishery.
However, as Alex Fergusson and Aileen McLeod have said, there are a number of issues with the way in which the matter has been handled. Is it possible to prolong consideration of the order so that we can get some answers on those issues?
Like Alex Fergusson, I have had no representations, which is most unusual. Usually, once a fishery is reopened and people are applying for licences, we get surgeries full of people with complaints about licences and so on. We have not had the sort of traffic that we would normally have on this issue. I share the Government’s concern about reopening an unregulated fishery and that is not what we want to achieve; we just want further information.
We are still in public session, of course, and members have asked a lot of questions so far. We can get some of those questions clarified before we need to make a decision.
I tend to concur with the three members who have already spoken, probably because we all represent the Solway region in some way.
I have been on parts of the Solway on which there are plans to seed cockles, to manage them in a proper farmed way, which is a totally sustainable form of cockle fishing. The order would effectively kill those plans stone dead. I am not sure whether Alex Fergusson is saying that we should defer a decision, but I think that we should defer it until we have had some good evidence.
In paragraph 7 of the Executive note attached to the order, the Government indicates that it wrote to those who held licences under the 2006 order, as well as other stakeholder organisations, setting out the position and inviting comments. It goes on to say that it had a limited response to that consultation and that the response was mixed. Other committee members’ suggestion that we ask for more information about that stakeholder consultation is fair comment. The extent of the consultation was not clear and it is not particularly informative to say that the response was mixed. What was the response?
From a legal point of view, the order would extend the existing ban to cover hand collection and would stay on the statute book until anything else happened. In that sense, it is potentially temporary. However, I agree with other committee members that further clarification of that point would be useful, including what the next steps would be for coming up with a management regime, and the timetable for those next steps.
The point on enforcement is a fair one but only up to a point because if the order is implemented, it will be a breach of it to collect by hand or in any other way, so there would be an automatic consequence of proceeding with that action. I mention that, as a lawyer by trade.
I totally agree with the desire to defer a decision and with the request for further information. However, I am concerned about what it says in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Executive note. Paragraph 4 says that
“The Solway Firth’s cockle stocks remain too low to allow the fishery to be fully reopened, or entirely unregulated”,
while paragraph 5 says that
“The objective of this Order is to allow sufficient time for cockle stocks to recover to levels which can be exploited sustainably”.
I am quite happy for members to ask for further information, but I am content with the order.
11:15
I absolutely agree with Elaine Murray that the last thing we want is to reopen an unregulated fishery—that would be a fast route to disaster. However, local knowledge reveals that there are areas in the Solway where cockle stocks are more than sufficient. That is admitted to in the Government’s letter to the Presiding Officer, which refers to pockets that could be reopened.
Jim Hume made the important point that there are initiatives and people along the Solway who are keen to undertake seeding projects to develop an aquaculture industry there. In his introduction to the common fisheries policy debate last week, the cabinet secretary spoke of the importance of encouraging our aquaculture industry. There is an important resource in the Solway that has been mismanaged only because of an understandable desire to include all stakeholders along the banks of the Solway, which is incredibly difficult, as all of us who have been involved with the issue appreciate. That big issue will be completely hit on the head if we cannot get some answers to the questions that members have raised.
I have another piece of background information on something that may have a bearing on why the Government felt that it had to lay the order. The licences were issued by the Solway Shellfish Management Association, which, because the fishery has been closed for a period of time and no licence money has been coming in, was supported by the Government and Dumfries and Galloway Council for a while but has now packed up. Therefore, there is nobody who can issue licences at the moment. We need to ask the Government how that will be dealt with in the future. It may be that we cannot have anybody fishing for shellfish in the Solway because there is nobody to issue licences just now.
Alex Fergusson could stand next to the bridge and issue a slip.
I ask members to address their remarks through the convener.
Sorry, convener—I was just being flippant. I said that Alex Fergusson could stand at the side of the bridge and issue a slip.
We could ask the Government how it is going to handle the issuing of licences and the policing of the fishery if the fishery reopens.
I will sum up members’ views. We note that the order has been in force since 15 September and that, if we want to alter things, we need to get further information. The Official Report of this meeting will be available only at the beginning of next week; therefore, I propose that I write to the cabinet secretary with the concerns that members have raised and reinforce that using the Official Report when it is available. As Richard Lochhead and his officials are coming to the committee next week to speak on other matters, we can ask that he bring officials who can speak on this matter so that we can question them at that stage. That will allow us to decide whether we want to lodge a motion to annul the instrument.
Such a motion would have to be lodged next week, convener—is that correct? Can we confirm that?
If there were a motion to annul, on the basis of our current timetable it would need to be lodged by next week’s meeting. However, the motion would not need to be moved once it had been lodged if members were satisfied with what the cabinet secretary said. The other way around the issue would be to schedule an additional meeting.
Not a good idea, but thank you for the advice.
I am glad to see that cockles have moved up the political agenda and that members across the parties are concerned about the issue. That should allow us to make up our minds about whether we need to take further action next week. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Bananas (Enforcement of Quality Standards) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (SSI 2011/325)
Bees Diseases and Pests Control (Scotland) Amendment Order 2011 (SSI 2011/326)
We have two other items of subordinate legislation to deal with. There have been no notes from the Subordinate Legislation Committee on SSI 2011/325 or SSI 2011/326 and no motions to annul have been lodged. I take it that the committee agrees that we do not wish to make any recommendation on the instruments.
Members indicated agreement.
We may want to look into the issues at some point, but we are content with those pieces of subordinate legislation.
I now close the public part of the meeting and we will have to clear the public gallery. I apologise to those who have arrived very recently, but they have learned more about cockles than they might have known otherwise. The next meeting of the committee will be on 5 October.
11:20
Meeting continued in private until 11:39.