European and External Relations Committee, 14 Mar 2006

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 14, 2006

Official Report 253KB pdf

---

Petition

---

Fishing Industry (PE804)

Item 6 relates to our continued consideration of PE804. At the last meeting, it was agreed that the clerks would provide us with a scoping paper on how to take forward our consideration of the petition. Members now have that before them. We also have some additional information from the petitioners.

I thank the clerks for the scoping paper. I would be more than happy to proceed along the lines that have been suggested. However, I would like to see the paper from our legal adviser before any evidence is taken.

As I have said before, the issue of withdrawal from the common fisheries policy is reserved to the United Kingdom Government. That is not to say anything about the merits of the petitioners' case, but they have been heard by the Scottish Parliament before and I think that their comments would best be addressed to Westminster if what they seek is withdrawal from the CFP. At the beginning of this process, at a previous meeting, Gordon Jackson asked what could be achieved by our agreeing to the terms of the petition. There are two or three possible outcomes. If the entire committee agreed that we should withdraw from the CFP—which is not going to happen—what would we achieve? If the committee did not agree with that proposal and there was a majority view that we should remain in the CFP, again, what difference would that make to the petitioners? I think that we would be raising expectations that we could not satisfy.

The committee's decision at the previous meeting was not about pulling out of the common fisheries policy but about considering the constitutional issue of whether the UK could legally withdraw from the CFP while remaining within the EU and the potential ramifications of that for the UK and Scotland. That relates to the paper from our legal adviser that Phil Gallie thinks we should scrutinise before we invite evidence.

In a sense, we have moved on, which is good. We are no longer about to consider whether the CFP is a good thing, a bad thing, a great thing or a rotten thing. The committee may have agreed this, but it now appears that we are discussing whether it would be legal for us to withdraw from the CFP. As a lawyer, I am hugely interested in that; as a member of the Scottish Parliament, I have no interest in the subject whatever. Legally, I find it fascinating—it is a nice wee topic and I am sure that I would enjoy reading the legal paper. However, we are really busy and we have a lot to do. If I am about to spend hours looking into a question, I always ask myself what I will do with the answer. If the committee decides that the UK Government could legally, if it wanted, withdraw from the CFP and stay within the EU, big deal. On the other hand, we might discover that we could not legally withdraw and stay within the EU. I do not see the point of the exercise.

That was an argument for the committee meeting at which the decision was taken to go ahead.

If that is a binding decision, fine—have the paper; but it is a total waste of time.

Surprise, surprise: I am with Gordon Jackson on this. It is a ridiculously esoteric debate, which might generate a lot of paper and no doubt some fees for somebody, but would not—

Perhaps it is a better idea than I thought.

It would achieve absolutely nothing. What is the point? We have better things to do.

I repeat that the petition was on the agenda at the previous meeting; members who came to that meeting considered it and a decision was made. What we now have is a paper saying how we can translate that into what the committee requires.

My understanding is that we are being asked to take a decision on the recommendations in a scoping paper. That is a bit different.

The committee considers many issues, including the European constitution, on which it can only form an opinion. The committee can relay that opinion to the UK Government, which can take action or take note. I do not see any difference between this issue and other issues that we have considered along those lines.

With respect to Gordon Jackson, perhaps there are few fishermen left in Govan. This is an on-going argument throughout Scotland, which matters to a lot of people. The fact that issues such as this get ignored is one reason why Europe has become unpopular. We are on a fact-finding mission and nothing more. Addressing the issue might ease arguments in other places. I accept that, at the end of the day, we may not achieve what I would like, but addressing the issue will remove a valid, long-standing argument that remains an issue of contention for a lot of people in Scotland.

The committee also considered at the previous meeting the fact that this was a fairly quick way of going forward and taking further decisions.

I was party to the decision at the previous meeting to ask for a scoping paper. I would be happy to go along with recommendation a) that we ask for a paper on the legal position. Phil Gallie has made the point that we had better have that paper before we consider taking evidence. That is as far as I am prepared to go at this stage. I would be happy to support recommendation a), if that is the consensus. It would be premature to consider recommendations b) and c).

That is fair.

Members will not be surprised to know that over the past year—or however long it is since the petition was submitted to the Parliament—I have paid close attention to it. Phil Gallie is right to say that the matter continues to be a major issue in many of our fishing communities around Scotland's coasts.

The difficulty with the petition—which has been on the Parliament's agenda for the past year, since it was signed by a quarter of a million Scots—is that Europe is a reserved matter. However, the Parliament has a European and External Relations Committee. Because the petition is essentially about a European matter, other committees have referred it to this committee. When the Environment and Rural Development Committee, of which I am a member, considered the petition, it felt that this was the appropriate committee.

When I read the recommendations before coming to the meeting, I thought that they were sensible and represented a good way forward. They would help to bring matters to a head and allow things to move on.

I agree with the views of others around the table that the recommendations can be looked at in two ways. We could simply ask the committee's legal adviser to write up an opinion and then discuss our course of action once we receive that advice. Alternatively, we could decide both to ask for that legal advice and to hear from the petitioners, who may agree or disagree with the committee's legal advice.

I agree that we should hear from a representative of the UK Government. There are many precedents for taking evidence from UK Government ministers on reserved issues. Given that a UK minister negotiates on behalf of the UK on fishing matters, it is appropriate that we hear his views on the legalities and on the general issue.

The issue is clearly not popular with all political parties but, in responding to an issue of public concern, the committee must act on behalf of the wider Parliament. I hope that the committee will decide to adopt some, or preferably all, of the recommendations.

As one who was present at the previous meeting at which we discussed the petition, I think that Charlie Gordon has accurately summed up both our intention behind asking for the paper and my feelings about the recommendations.

For the record, I still think that we should not be going down this path. However, if the legal adviser is to give us her view on the matter, I wish her well.

I absolutely agree with Gordon Jackson. The recommendation in paragraph 7 a) involves

"Asking the … Legal Adviser to produce a paper outlining the legal position of the UK withdrawing from the CFP and what consequences would result."

I do not know that a legal adviser will be able to tell us what the consequences would be.

The clerks will have checked that out before including it in the recommendation.

If I was a legal adviser, I would take the question to mean what legal consequences, rather than political consequences, would result from withdrawal from the CFP. That should be made clear. I confess that, out of curiosity, I would want to see what any legal adviser would make of it. All I can say is that I am glad that I am not the committee's legal adviser.

She is sitting and watching the meeting on her monitor right now.

I think that the general view of those who attended the previous meeting at which the decision was taken is that we should have the legal opinion. Would it be appropriate to request the paper for the next meeting or would that be too soon?

My understanding is that the legal adviser has already done some initial work on the matter.

How many pages will it take?

I am told that it will not be very long.

It could probably be summed up with the words "Maybe's aye, maybe's naw."

Do we agree to the suggestion in paragraph 7 a)?

We should clarify the wording by stating that the legal adviser's paper should outline what legal consequences might result from the proposal.

The clerk has confirmed to me that that is Elspeth MacDonald's reading of the matter.

I cannot agree to recommendations b) and c). I am going along with recommendation a) only because colleagues feel strongly about it and, in a democracy, it is important to listen to colleagues. I share Gordon Jackson's view that the suggestion is a complete waste of the committee's time because the matter is reserved to Westminster. I put on record that I do not really agree with the recommendation.

But you will go along with it.

Thus far and no further.

Exactly.

Thank you.