European Committee, 11 Sep 2001

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 11, 2001

Official Report 185KB pdf

---

Common Fisheries Policy

The next item on the agenda concerns reform of the common fisheries policy. The Executive has commented on our report but, as members will see, not all of our recommendations have been taken up. I regret that a couple of issues have not progressed. I am still concerned that there does not seem to be a way of spreading compensation from decommissioning to crews and workers as a matter of right. I am not entirely sure that leaving such matters to the owners always allows the compensation to filter down.

I am keen for the Executive to do its utmost to secure formal decision-making powers for any zonal management committees that are formed. It has accepted some of the principles that we have put forward, but at present it seems to be hedging its bets. It is still not sure about it. However, we made a clear recommendation, although we understand that the Executive must be careful about what it says ahead of negotiations. Nevertheless, we have put forward two specific points.

Colin Campbell has been lodging questions on the second matter, so it might be helpful if he could monitor the situation on behalf of the committee.

As you probably know, I have lodged several questions to the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development to see what representations she has made to the United Kingdom Government and to find out how powerful they have been. The answers that I have received do not suggest that she has made the most powerful representations in the world in respect of giving power to the zonal management committees. However, I shall press on with such matters. Obviously, the answers are already in the public domain, but I can make sure that they are filed for our use.

The Executive's view on trickle down—money being given to crews rather than to owners—is based on the fact that UK schemes have not traditionally included such measures; rather, they have compensated owners for the permanent removal of their vessels. However, that does not mean that crews cannot be compensated. If the Executive has the will, it can do it. The Executive could top-slice funds for an early retirement scheme, for example. I am not swayed by the Executive's defence.

First, at the heart of many of our discussions in producing the report was regional management and the structure of the zonal management committees. The sentence

"The Executive envisages that the regional bodies should take an advisory role in the first instance but that their functions should be kept under review."

strikes me as a failure to implement zonal management, because if it is to be implemented, the regional committees must have more than an advisory role. In addition, who will review their functions?

Secondly, to follow on from what Ben Wallace said, the information we received during the inquiry suggested that previous compensation systems have not trickled down and that we now have a great opportunity to change the system. It is simply not acceptable for the Government to say, "Traditionally, this has not been done." Traditionally, until 1921, we did not give women the vote. Where does tradition stop and sensible best practice begin? We have to tell the Executive that it has failed to understand what we have said in our report about those two areas.

It is true that the committee was enthusiastic about zonal management—there is no question about that—but I understand also the Minister for Environment and Rural Development's caution in implementing what we all believe is a good idea. The acid test for zonal management is whether it will work as either a pilot or an advisory board in the first instance. From what the minister has said, I have detected a commitment to make it work. I hope that, ultimately, decision making will be delegated, but before the umbilical cord is released and decision-making powers are granted, it would be fair to take a cautious approach, so I do not disagree with the feedback from the Executive.

The last sentence in the part of the Executive's response that refers to paying money to crews runs:

"Of course, there is nothing to prevent vessel owners from sharing with crews the proceeds of any decommissioning grant they may receive."

That presupposes that every owner is awash with philanthropy and wants to be fair. Traditionally, that has not always been the case. There is a golden opportunity, on which I am sure we all concur, to take measures to firm up that view for the benefit of crews.

I say to Lloyd Quinan and Helen Eadie that regional management, which was the thrust of the green paper, is important and I am against watering down our reply. Helen Eadie makes the fair point that regional management could go disastrously wrong, but that should not prevent the Executive using stronger words of support. It could provide a timetable, so that decision making could be delegated after six or seven months.

The point of zonal management is that if you get it wrong, that is it; fishing stops and you cannot go looking to the Irish sea for your fish. Zonal management committees should be executive, not advisory, so that they have to face up to their responsibilities. The Executive could have supported that more strongly. After all, the Executive will have to lobby Europe for such committees. I expected the Executive to show this committee more of a commitment to zonal management committees, although perhaps with the precautionary measures to which Helen Eadie alluded. It seems that the Executive wants the zonal management committees to be advisory because it does not want to let go its own powers.

I will write on behalf of the committee to thank the Executive for its response, but I will emphasise that the two important points that we made are still significant. First, there is an opportunity to provide trickle-down compensation to those who work in the industry. Secondly, zonal management is an important principle for the committee. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.