Official Report 107KB pdf
Item 2 is consideration of a paper on pre and post-council scrutiny, which has been circulated to members. Members might notice a time lag in some papers' arrival at the committee, which, for once, is not the fault of the Scottish Executive but is the result of our decision to defer consideration of those papers because of the volume of evidence that we were taking at previous meetings. The table at annex A summarises the recommendations on various issues. Do members have comments on the paper? One of the major issues at this time of year is the talks at the agriculture and fisheries council, about which there was a debate in the Scottish Parliament on 9 December. The Minister for Environment and Rural Development gave evidence to the Environment and Rural Development Committee in advance of the talks and I am sure that we will receive feedback from that direction.
In the past there has been much discussion about the harvesting of sand eels, but I see no mention of the matter in the papers. The issue has perhaps dropped off the horizon. There have been concerns about the impact of sand eel harvesting on fish breeding grounds. Is the matter of interest to the minister?
The point that you raise has been a material point in many of the negotiations in the past. Given that the Environment and Rural Development Committee has taken evidence from the minister, I do not think we should duplicate that committee's work by taking evidence as well. We can certainly ask the minister in writing about the outcome of discussions in the council on that point.
From experience, I can say that the British interest in that industrial fishery is very small—merely a blemish. In general, the British side in the talks tries to negotiate the fishery down, while other sides try to negotiate it back up again. That is probably why the issue does not figure in the papers.
That is the point that I was making.
We will write to Ross Finnie to ask about the matter in the light of the negotiations, but we do not expect to take evidence on the point at this stage.
Big changes are happening in fisheries and in agriculture. It is clear that the Environment and Rural Development Committee is the lead committee on such matters, but given the nature of the changes—particularly in agriculture support, as members know from their constituency work—there might be something to be said for the European and External Relations Committee working in tandem with the Environment and Rural Development Committee, in view of our direct links to counterparts in Brussels and in view of the fact that the Environment and Rural Development Committee has other things on its plate. The changes could affect many areas in Scotland in a big way and given the preponderance of less favoured areas for farming in Scotland we should keep an eye on the situation. It would be worth making common cause with our counterparts on the Environment and Rural Development Committee.
There is an awareness among conveners of the importance of respecting committees' boundaries, to ensure that we do not duplicate work. The matter was raised briefly at the Conveners Group meeting last week and we should bear it in mind. However, I will ask the clerks to include your point in our briefing papers for the away day in January, at which we will select our forward work programme, so that we can reflect on the matter in more detail.
The second bullet point of annex B, on the agriculture and fisheries council, is on deep-sea stocks. We can have as many total allowable catches and quotas in deep-sea areas as we want, but if they are not enforced, it is all hot air. We have raised the point in the past. Action must be taken, but what is being done about enforcing the rules?
We will ask the minister about that, too.
The agriculture and fisheries council negotiations always take place in December and I think that all members who represent fishing communities are aware of the difficulties of relaying information apart from what we read in the press, hear on the radio or see on the television. Should the committee recommend a more flexible approach to decisions and the moving of the main fisheries council meeting from December to an earlier or later date? John Home Robertson was Deputy Minister for Rural Affairs and had responsibility for fisheries; does he think that it would be better if those talks took place at another time of the year?
There is a December madness that comes round every year, which has aye been, I am afraid.
That is probably the most scientific comment that could be made about the process. Most observers take the view that the December rush to set quotas is a thoroughly unacceptable process, but the will is required to change the situation. We can raise the point in our letter to the minister. If there are no further comments on the paper, we will move on.
Previous
Item in PrivateNext
Sift