Colleagues will recall that we received a letter from the Minister for Environment and Rural Development regarding the scientific council's report on animal welfare. Maureen Macmillan contacted us in the first instance about the matter. The clerks have suggested a number of actions for the committee. First, I assume that the committee welcomes the fact that the information that the committee requested has been provided. We also asked for an update on the timetable. We should ask the clerks to contact the Executive to discover whether there is any further information on the timetable because the information in the letter that we received is not very clear.
There is a little information in the late paper that we have received. It states that there will be a general discussion and that legislative proposals are expected in the autumn.
We will ask the clerks to check whether that late paper meets the requirements of our initial request or whether we need further information.
We should also note the information that has just been circulated about what is likely to be on the agenda of the agriculture and fisheries council meeting on 23 and 24 September. We might want to ask for further information about the Executive's position in relation to that. Are members agreed?
We will note the contents of the letter, thank the Executive for its response and send a copy of the letter and the briefing note to Maureen Macmillan and Neil MacCormick, both of whom brought the matter to the committee's attention earlier this year. Moreover, we will raise with the Executive the points that we have agreed. Are members agreed?
We move on to the next item. We have summarised all the correspondence with the Scottish Executive environment and rural affairs department about the decommissioning of fishing vessels. Members will recall that we have been discussing the issue with SEERAD for a number of months now. I recommend that committee members consider the correspondence and decide whether we have enough information to complete our inquiries or whether we need more. We are somewhat in the hands of people such as John Home Robertson who have a lot of experience in this matter. John, do you have any views on this?
There is heaps of what might be called "anecdotal information" to suggest that some skulduggery is going on and that people are recycling vessels that are supposed to have been decommissioned. However, although people have tried to nail the matter down, no one has found any examples of it happening. That is what SEERAD is telling us. In the absence of hard information—and unless anyone can prove otherwise—we will have to accept its conclusion. I think that Struan Stevenson initially raised the matter.
The committee should say that no evidence exists and that it is content that there has been no foul play in the decommissioning scheme. We owe that to the fishermen.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we should accept SEERAD's explanation.
Significantly, the department's response points out that the issue is not just the boats, but the licences. Unless we have any other information to go on, we will not be able to take the matter any further.
The Executive's response does not make it clear whether a licence is completely withdrawn from the market when it is handed in after decommissioning. It seems to suggest that the licence is resold, but with a 30 per cent reduction in capacity.
Well, the term "new licence" is used in paragraph 4.
I think that I know what this is about. If a vessel is decommissioned, the licence just goes; however, a proprietor of a fishing vessel who wants to move from a smaller to a larger vessel or vice versa will incur an aggregation penalty and a particular percentage is deducted from the total. Although that is a separate instrument, it is all part of the concerted policy to reduce the fishing industry's capacity. That policy appears to be working.
So when the licence is handed in, that is it.
Decommissioning means decommissioning. However, aggregation—or amalgamating two smaller boats to make a bigger one—is a separate issue and is affected by the aggregation penalty.
Are members agreed that, in the absence of any further evidence, we should conclude our deliberations on this matter?
That brings us to a request from the House of Lords, seeking views for its inquiry into the European Police Office—or EUROPOL—convention. Given that Scotland has its own police forces that could potentially take part in EUROPOL's activities—
We have to be really clear about this. We have to be involved not because we have our own police force but because we have a separate legal framework, which creates our police force. Northumberland has its own police force, for example.
Okay, point taken. The essence of the matter is that the House of Lords has asked us whether we wish to submit evidence to the inquiry. The clerks have recommended that we write to the Scottish Executive to suggest that an MSP sit on the inquiry board. Are members interested in pursuing that?
That is reasonable. EUROPOL has broadened its task base. It used to focus on matters that are reserved to Westminster, but it is now going down a different route. It is reasonable for a Scottish representative to sit on the proposed joint committee and I support the recommendations that we ask the Executive about the nature and extent of its involvement with EUROPOL activities and that we consider the possibility of an MSP sitting on the proposed joint committee.
We might want to raise the issue with the justice committees to advise them that we have been invited to submit views to the inquiry, because they might want to add something to our submission.
Perhaps the appointed representative should be the Lord Advocate.
We can ask for views.
It depends on whether scrutiny of EUROPOL's activities is to be conducted from a political perspective or a legal perspective. If it is to be conducted from a legal perspective, I suggest that the Lord Advocate, rather than an elected member, be Scotland's representative.
I do not know how other committee members feel. Our views are being sought as a committee of the Parliament. Therefore, it is important for us to seek views within the Parliament, ask the Executive what its intentions are and make a proposal using that information.
That is reasonable. The convener's report recommends that we write to the clerk of sub-committee F of the House of Lords European Union Committee to advise him of our deliberations and actions. From that I infer that there will be representation from the House of Commons on the proposed joint committee. Given that the remit of EUROPOL is to be broadened to take on some of the operational matters of Scotland's police forces, it seems reasonable to go down the route that the convener suggests.
From what I understand of EUROPOL—I am probably not right up on this—it is about sharing information throughout Europe. At the moment, a UK police body liaises with EUROPOL. If an officer from Strathclyde police wants information from French police, he goes to the UK police body, which liases with the French body through EUROPOL. We are talking about the parliamentary accountability of the UK body as opposed to that of different police forces. If there were an interface between a Scottish body and EUROPOL, I would say that we have to send a representative. However, given that the UK body, which probably includes officers from all forces, liaises with EUROPOL, perhaps the UK Parliament should conduct the scrutiny.
You are right that the objective is to improve parliamentary scrutiny of the EUROPOL convention. The House of Lords feels that we should share our views with it. We do not necessarily have to decide today whether there should be a Scottish representative and who that person should be. We should seek further information, consult the justice committees and the Executive and decide at a future meeting what view we want to take. Is that agreed?
Our view might be pragmatic. The background information makes it abundantly clear that the bulk of EUROPOL's activities relate to reserved rather than devolved matters, but there might be circumstances in which information about devolved subjects would come into the frame. The pragmatic approach might be simply to establish a right for a Scottish representative to take part in the work of such a supervisory body where necessary. That would fall short of taking up the cost and responsibility of sending somebody to every single meeting.
I think that we are agreed on a course of action.
Could we please seek information clarifying the role of those who take part? I do not want to repeat myself for a fourth time, but the scrutiny that we provide here aims to protect the integrity of Scots law, not that of the police forces. To my understanding, that is our scrutinising function, as members of the Scottish Parliament as opposed to UK citizens.
We could seek further information, but my understanding is that the idea is to improve parliamentary control over EUROPOL. We can ask for information on what the parameters are for that. I can see us being in a position to draft a letter or report in response to the proposals, but I think that we need a bit more information so that we consult a bit more widely on how to proceed. Are we agreed on that?
I think that the Deputy First Minister has just arrived for the next agenda item, but I am aware that some people have been in the room for a considerable time, so I am willing to take a five-minute comfort break, and members may get themselves a coffee.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
Previous
Sift