European Committee, 16 Jan 2001

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 16, 2001

Official Report 141KB pdf

---

Common Fisheries Policy Inquiry

The next item is the inquiry into the reform of the common fisheries policy and a review of the written evidence that has been received. A substantial body of opinion has been presented to us and I thank those organisations that have taken the time to give us detailed contributions. Given that events took place over the holiday period, I recognise the effort that has been made.

The committee has noted the significance of fisheries to the Scottish economy. We should not underestimate the consequences of changes to our fishing communities. We will have to strike a balance. I understand that the Rural Development Committee has a different set of responsibilities, but nevertheless there will be overlap between the work of the two committees. In this meeting and the next we should focus on the European perspective and what reform means for Scotland.

It has been said that it may be too early for us to enter a debate on this. However, if we do not start the work now, we may find that, as usual, we will be running very fast to catch up when the proposals are published. Therefore, I do not think that the time that we spend on the issue will be wasted. We want to examine the principles, which we can easily do from the information that has been published. I am sure that there will be some interest from other MSPs and the industry. We will need to exercise discipline so that we look at the big picture, concentrate on the principles and do not duplicate the work of another committee.

Before I ask Stephen Imrie to update us on the evidence that we have received, are there any comments on the process?

I agree 100 per cent that it is important that in the inquiry we keep a tight focus and adhere rigidly to our remit.

I thought that it would be beneficial to the committee to provide members with an update. I am conscious that some of the evidence has reached you only in the past few days and that you may not have been able to consider it all in detail. The clerks and legal adviser will try to provide a summary of all the evidence that we have received.

I remind the committee of the time scales that we are operating under. I have been in discussion with some contacts in the European Commission, who advise us that the green paper that will set out the general principles for reform is likely to be published in March or April. The draft agenda issued by the Swedish presidency for the fisheries council of June 2001 includes the policy debate on the green paper. Those dates should be borne in mind.

The committee will recall that we have invited submissions of evidence based around seven key areas. Those were published in our terms of reference, which were issued on 29 November. Most of the submissions that we have received have focused on those seven issues and provided us with further information.

Let me remind members of the seven issues. The first is zonal management or the regionalisation of the common fisheries policy. The question relates to the extent to which the management of fisheries can be decentralised, how to involve a wide range of stakeholders in the process of managing fisheries, and who those stakeholders might be.

The second issue relates to governance and the structures that may be put in place to manage the CFP in the future. It also involves improving communication between the various groups that have an interest—fisheries bodies, member states, the Commission, non-governmental organisations and the scientific community.

The third issue concerns the wider socioeconomic impact of the common fisheries policy. We asked how the policy can be used to promote both sustainable fishing and the protection of local communities.

The fourth issue relates to the precautionary principle, how it can be applied, how consistent it is with the current rules on total allowable catches or quotas, and what alternatives there are to total allowable catches.

The fifth issue relates to fisheries limits, zones and access. In particular, we mentioned the six-mile and 12-mile limits, the retention of the Shetland box, closed boxes and the potential disaggregation between inshore and offshore fishing.

The penultimate issue relates to technical or conservation measures and the integration of environmental policy into the CFP. It also involves issues relating to zoning, mesh sizes, nursery zones, discards and bycatch solutions.

The final issue is whether aquaculture should be an integral part of the CFP.

We have been advised that those seven issues are the main ones on which to focus. We have received 29 items of evidence, which, as members will see, are extremely detailed and rigorous. We have received evidence from the vast majority of fishing bodies from north and south of the border and from the majority of environmental groups that have an interest in the area. We have also had evidence from members of the European Parliament and from members of the academic community.

We will try to keep members abreast of the outcome of the December fisheries council and the current discussions that are taking place in Brussels. Those talks will affect the situation that members will be attempting to review. I remind members that the terms of reference focus on a medium or long-term overall review of the CFP. As I said, the clerks will produce within the next few working days a summation of all the evidence that we have received so far and of what, in our opinion, the emerging issues are.

Thank you, Stephen. That is extremely useful.

I have not read every submission, but I have read a number of them. A common thread of concern among fishermen is that UK enforcement of regulations seems to be far stricter than that of other countries. That relates not only to overfishing, but to the application of guidelines and regulations.

I recall that we spoke at a previous meeting about hygiene and monitoring in Shetland and the fact that we apply strict controls. There are people who strictly monitor how we go about loading and unloading fish, which obviously contributes to the cost of the fishing industry. That thread runs through a number of the submissions, and I wonder whether, when we are taking evidence, we could consider auditing that and questioning the Commission about it. That is an area in which we could have a value-added impact, over and above anything that could be done in relation to rural development; it is the sort of area that we should concentrate on.

The Commission has already said that it is keen to give oral evidence, so we could take that opportunity to ask about those issues. If we do, we should highlight them in advance, so that the witnesses are prepared for our questions. I ask the clerks to note that and to find out when the Commission might be available.

I am glad to hear that the Commission is prepared to provide oral evidence, but why did it decline to provide written evidence?

I have received a letter outlining the reasons. I believe that the Commission does not want to provide written material while it is still finalising plans for the green paper. However, the letter indicated that the Commission would be more than happy to discuss whether officials could come to the committee. I shall provide copies of that letter to members.

I just wondered whether there was a problem of recognition, but there seems not to be.

I agree up to a point with what Irene Oldfather said, but I have a concern about what are frequently mythologies. I would like to see evidence that backs up what I read in the submissions about the enforcement regime in the UK being different from regimes elsewhere. Nobody tells me about their experience of other places, and I am sick to the back teeth of hearing that all those bad things go on in Europe and that we do not do them. There is no evidence to back that up. If we are to question the Commissioners about rigorous enforcement in the UK, we will run the risk of looking like little Britons if we do not have evidence of how vigorous enforcement is elsewhere in Europe.

I whole-heartedly agree that it is never early enough to start looking at this issue, but I make a suggestion about how we handle the debate. All the evidence that we have received is from people in the UK and outlines their concerns. When we discuss issues such as the common agricultural policy and common fisheries policy, we frequently have little or no understanding of the appreciation of the CAP and CFP by people in similar situations to ours. The Galician and Basque autonomous communities both depend on fishing to almost the same degree as Scotland does. The Basque people are the biggest eaters of cod in the whole of Europe, so I would like to know what they have to say.

I noticed that, last week, the pre-meeting to the fisheries meeting consisted of a discussion between the Commission fishery officials and the Norwegians, who put forward their views on conservation. It is incumbent on us to communicate with the fishery adviser to the Basque autonomous community and ask what the Basque approach is. We should consider the matter from the perspective of a Parliament that is operating on the same level as we are and that has a similar dependency on the fishing industry. The Basque Parliament has a slightly different interaction with the EU from ours, but that is a Spanish constitutional issue. Rather than simply hearing the results of the meetings, we would find it useful to have an idea of Basque thinking on the issue.

There are two separate issues. When the witnesses come before the committee, we have an opportunity to ask them to provide the evidence and information. That would be a useful line of questioning. We can make contact with other areas of Europe and I will speak to the clerk to see what we can usefully obtain quickly. However, I would want to avoid a protracted inquiry that seeks to do the work of other well-resourced institutions. We are a small committee with limited resources. We must stick to our remit. However, some of the general background information that Lloyd Quinan referred to might be useful.

Do we know whether the criteria on fish handling and so on that are applied in Europe are universal? Do we know that the criteria that determine how the fishery protection fleets or the navy work are consistent? Is there a uniform set of standards to which all fishery enforcement and protection agencies must work or are there differences between countries? It might be worth knowing that before we take evidence.

We will see what information we can get on that.

I want to follow up Lloyd Quinan's point. I agree that we should not be parochial about the issue. I am not saying that UK enforcement of regulations is different, but that is a common allegation. We should investigate that matter. That is something in which the committee could play an important role. We could find out what is happening and either nail it on the head or clarify the situation.

I agree with Irene Oldfather about trying to measure the extent of the problem. Some years ago, I read an EU information document that set out information about different member states and compared the extent to which each member state polices the fishery zones within its territory. It was interesting to note that at that time—about three years ago—the UK had a high level of policing. However, things may have changed. It would be interesting to know whether that is subject to monitoring and whether a similar, more current, document exists. That would be useful information, in addition to the oral evidence.

The timetable is very focused and our primary aim must be to establish what is the best deal we can get for Scotland in terms of common fisheries policy reform. If we were to go off at a tangent and take too much time considering Spanish and Danish interests, and even some of the enforcement issues, we might not achieve that. We are looking to prepare a position to help influence negotiation in March and beyond. Perhaps an adviser to the committee or an appointed expert would be able to go out and seek that information and evidence for us. That would allow the committee to stay focused. A meeting every fortnight between now and March does not give us much time.

Perhaps members could leave the question of an adviser and how to seek information from other areas to me. I will discuss that with the clerk and ensure that we do not lose sight of it. We will come back to the committee with information and proposals.

The paper that Stephen Imrie has prepared clearly summarises the main areas that we should cover in our inquiry. I take the point about our resources being rather limited, but perhaps we should think about getting an adviser. I do not know whether that would be hugely expensive, but I am sure that it would be helpful. In any event, with or without an expert adviser, we should ensure that we get expert witnesses to come before the committee and put on record their views.

We have received many written submissions from individuals and organisations. I hope that we can prioritise and decide which people would be willing to come and give oral evidence. There may also be some who have not submitted written evidence—the Commission is an obvious example. We should start that process as early as possible.

As I said to Ben Wallace, I will come back to the committee on that.

The next part of the discussion is the suggested programme of witnesses. Before I move on to that, one of the things that we might want to explore is the idea of the committee or a delegation from the committee visiting some fishing communities and meeting the people who are directly involved. Again, I will talk to Stephen Imrie and bring back some proposals on how to do that. The issue is a practical one and would justify a committee visit to meet relevant organisations and individuals.

Dennis Canavan made the point about expert evidence. There is a suggested programme of witnesses that the clerk and I have been considering. If members have other suggestions, they should feed those in before the next meeting.

On 30 January, we had thought to have someone from the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, the Scottish White Fish Producers Association, the Scottish Fishermen's Organisation—there seem to be quite a few fishing organisations—the Shetland sea food centre, the Mallaig and North West Fishermen's Association, the Fishermen's Association and Scottish Environment LINK, of which both the RSPB and the World Wide Fund for Nature have membership. Although some of the organisations are linked, there are also geographical perspectives that must be balanced. Those were just some of the names to think about.

We thought that we might best start by talking to the industry. We might not necessarily ask for a detailed submission, as the industry has already presented written evidence, but we would want to use the opportunity to ask questions. Lloyd Quinan has already identified a useful line of questioning in that regard. After that, it might be useful if we talked to someone from an academic background.

The European Commission has already been mentioned. We would need to negotiate about when we could get its representatives before the committee. Scottish Natural Heritage would have some legitimate comment to make, as would officials from the Scottish Executive rural affairs department—we want to question the minister but we should also get some technical information from officials, as opposed to political comment.

Irrespective of what happens with the conservation procedure, we know that jobs will be lost. Is it within our remit to consider support and training for people who are likely to lose their jobs? The Scottish Executive rural affairs department is examining that already. Would we be able to examine the Executive's position on the decommissioning and laying-up of the fleet and on whether it will operate a compensation scheme?

We need to be careful. We are trying to examine European policy to ensure that Scotland and its industry get the best deal from that policy. We might want to comment on the ramifications of the application of that policy, but it would not be for this committee to think about how it impacts on communities. We might want to ask Highlands and Islands Enterprise for its comments on the job implications of European policy and for suggestions about what Europe should or should not be doing. There are issues to do with the application of structural funds that are also—

On the question of compensation—

I will come to that.

It would be administered by the EU, would it not?

Yes. We could consider compensation within our remit, but we would want to avoid doing what the Rural Development Committee or the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee should be doing. All sorts of trails could flow from the issue and we need to stay focused. We need Highlands and Islands Enterprise to address some issues, such as the application of structural funds, so we can ask about other issues at the same time.

I agree with your earlier comments about the people from whom we should seek evidence, such as the fishing organisations, academia, SNH, the Executive, the European Commission and environmental bodies, but a considerable number of fishing organisations have already submitted written evidence. I am not sure about the relative size of the organisations or about who and what they represent. Perhaps we should seek advice on that, if we have not already done so. If we talk to one association and not another, we might lay ourselves open to charges of not hearing all the evidence or of showing favouritism.

A number of the associations are members of an umbrella organisation but have different perspectives. I take the point that you make and assure you that we will take further advice.

At the first stage, those whom we invite would not necessarily give oral evidence; we would question them on the basis of their written evidence. We will take further soundings to ensure that we get the fairest possible cross-section of witnesses.

If we took evidence from Highlands and Islands Enterprise, would we get a different perspective from other enterprise companies, such as Scottish Enterprise Grampian, on north-east fishing interests? The funding regime for those organisations differs, and it might be interesting to get a different perspective.

We will take advice on that. Highlands and Islands Enterprise has a specific issue concerning European funding and what might or might not be done. Nevertheless, we can also ask Grampian about the ramifications of such funding for local communities.

If we invited Scottish Enterprise Grampian, I presume that Ann Bell would come, as she is already linked into the North Sea Commission's specialist fisheries group. If local government in Scotland was linked into the North Sea Commission, which embraces other countries across the North sea, we might be in a better position to get some comparative information from some of our colleagues in Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Germany and Belgium, for example. They might be able to give us some pointers in the specialist fisheries group. Has that idea featured in the discussions that the clerks have had with Scottish Enterprise Grampian—in the thinking about who might be invited, who could give that helicopter-down, comparative view of the policy that is being shaped across the North sea area?

We have contacted the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities but have not received a response. I hope that your points will be addressed in COSLA's response. We might seek written evidence from the local enterprise companies first, after which we can determine how to proceed.

Following up Dennis Canavan's point, I would be happy for you and the clerks to consider the evidence and determine which organisations differ in their views on the fishing industry. There is much agreement in the submissions, and we do not want to hear the same evidence four or five times. On the basis of the written evidence, you could whittle down the number of fishing industry organisations that we would ask to give oral evidence.

The Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions has quite a strong fishing lobby throughout Europe and would be able to give written or oral evidence that would represent a wide range of regions in Europe. That might take account of some of the points that Lloyd Quinan raised and would allow us to consider the matter from a broader perspective.

We will write to the CPMR for information. The Scottish Parliament information centre also has expertise in the fishing industry; the clerks will liaise with its researchers. We have tried to focus on organisations with slightly different views that need to be represented, and we will reconsider the matter carefully before we finalise the witness list.

PESCA was the scheme whereby European money was given to ports and harbours. It is worth asking whether the Scottish Executive thinks that scheme was successful and whether the aid schemes that were in place achieved what they were supposed to achieve so that, when we talk about reform we can know whether whatever package is put together is the same as the old model that the Government felt did or did not work.

The Community initiative—known as PESCA—was indeed one of the European funding packages for those aspects. I would be pleased if the committee agreed to return to some of the bodies that administered that fund, to ask them about their experience.

Members will be aware that one of the ramifications of the agenda 2000 process was to make one of the key structural funds, the financial instrument for fisheries guidance, available for certain of those aspects. A number of the written submissions that we have received make that point. I would be happy to highlight that in the document that we will produce for members and to ensure that the bodies that we agree to contact, such as the enterprise companies, comment on the administration of those funds.

Are there any further comments? If not, does the committee agree to invite witnesses for the meeting on 30 January?

Members indicated agreement.

I shall liaise with the clerks in drawing up the witness list for that meeting.

The committee has agreed to take the next item in private. I thank the members of the public for attending the committee and now ask them to leave.

Meeting continued in private until 16:00.