European and External Relations Committee, 23 Nov 2004

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 23, 2004

Official Report 264KB pdf

---

European Union Fisheries Control Agency

Agenda item 3 is on the paper that Alasdair Morrison has prepared on the role, remit and functions of the proposed EU fisheries control agency. The committee decided to contribute to the work that Elspeth Attwooll MEP has been doing as rapporteur to the European Parliament's Committee on Fisheries. My understanding of the timescale is that she has to formulate her report by tomorrow, which is why the paper is on the agenda today. Alasdair Morrison has worked on the report with the clerks and the Scottish Parliament information centre. Because of illness at the end of last week, there was a delay in getting material to Alasdair Morrison for him to approve, so the paper was issued to members only earlier today. Alasdair Morrison is on other committee business elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

We need to make a judgment on the contents of the paper. I remind members that we are working to somebody else's timescale and that if we want to input to Elspeth Attwooll's work, we must make a decision today.

I congratulate Alasdair Morrison on the paper, which is good. However, I have a couple of queries, and I am sorry that he is not here to answer them. Paragraph 14 mentions that the agency will lead to

"harmonisation of the management of Community fisheries",

which seems to cut away from the spirit of the regional advisory councils. I wonder whether the report should be quite as forthcoming as to welcome that.

Overall, it seems that the agency will take control of resources that nation states supply. As the report points out, our nation state probably over supplies resources compared to other states. Given that, I believe that the states' input into agency control should be equalised in some way and I would like the report to make that point, if members agree.

We are all in difficulties, because we received the draft report only this afternoon and it has been difficult to digest. I disagree with Phil Gallie on the harmonisation of fisheries management—it should be harmonised because the one big gripe in the fishing industry arises because of the perception that rules are enforced inequitably in different parts of Community waters. For example, the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency is tougher than its counterparts elsewhere. Harmonisation that results in equally rigorous application of the rules in all Community waters is an important principle.

The wording of paragraph 14 suggests that we welcome the transparency and equity that the new agency would provide, rather than the harmonisation. The harmonisation is a fact of life; it is a consequence of the common fisheries policy. I am comfortable with the point about transparency and equity, which I think is also John Home Robertson's point.

I want to raise another point to which I alluded in an earlier discussion on the issue and on which paragraph 5 touches: the enforcement of international conventions that cover deep waters that are adjacent to EU waters. I simply want to reiterate the importance and urgency of that enforcement because I understand that heavy uncontrolled fishing is taking place in the north-east Atlantic fishery. In deep water, fish stocks take a long time to recover if they are fished out. Under current regulations and with the current resources and authority that are available to nation states, that enforcement simply does not happen and a lot of damage is being done.

I want to underline and perhaps stiffen up the point in paragraph 5. We should mention the need for international political agreement and more effective controls, coupled with effective enforcement in those waters. That will be difficult because the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency operates only fairly small vessels that cannot be expected to operate in deep waters and high seas, which means that the work would have to be done by the Royal Navy or other naval assets.

In general, the report is good and I go along with most of it, but I have a couple of comments. First, I hope that Phil Gallie will not be shocked when I say that I have a certain sympathy with his view about the word "harmonisation". I fear that it could be misinterpreted as our committee being in favour of centralisation rather than of the decentralised regional committee structure that we advocated in our previous report. If we left out the bit in brackets, I think that we could—

Could we address that point just now? Are members comfortable with taking out the point in brackets, which says

"leading to harmonisation of the management of Community fisheries"?

So we still have equity of enforcement.

Yes. We shall just take out that wording.

My other point is about paragraph 32. I feel that the second sentence—although I agree with it—is rather negative, and I would prefer it to be stated in a more positive way to read something like this: "it should allow for adequate representation from the industry and from the regional advisory committees."

I am comfortable with that. Do other members have views on that?

Let us reflect on that for a second. I do not want to use a cliché, but it is a case of poachers controlling gamekeepers. Of course, they are not all poachers, but is it always appropriate to allow the industry, or the people who are subject to enforcement, to have a say in enforcement? I am not saying that Dennis Canavan's suggestion is wrong, but I think that we should be careful about what we are saying.

One of the central points of the debate that we have had for many years about the fishing industry is the fact that the industry has been kept at arm's length on many issues. Some of the problems might actually be better solved if there was some co-operative dialogue and a bit of buy-in from the industry. That is certainly the sense that underpins the involvement of the fisheries organisations in the regional advisory councils.

I am happy to go with that, but I suggest that the appropriate body to do that would be the regional advisory committee, which includes industry people and others.

Perhaps we could reverse the order of that sentence and say that "it should allow for input from the regional advisory committees, which include industry representatives." That might address the issue.

I would be happy with that.

Dennis, do you have any other comments?

No.

I have a brief comment on the process before I make my points. The deadline for amendments to the report by the rapporteur, Elspeth Attwooll, is 24 or 25 November. My only concern about the report that we are considering today is that it raises a number of important issues as concerns, but in the form of questions, so we are not being absolutely clear about how we want her report amended. It is almost as if we are asking for information, rather than saying how we feel the rapporteur's report should be amended. There are clearly a number of issues, including the ambiguity in powers, whether the agency is able to instruct member states, the deployment of military assets, different legal systems, dispute resolution and whether the agency would be cost neutral.

Important points are made in paragraphs 24 to 29 about the composition of the board, which seems to give a block vote to the European Commission. Member states might claim that they are underrepresented on the board where, as Dennis Canavan said, there will be no representation of the seven regional advisory committees. It is almost as if we are asking the rapporteur for information rather than saying how we feel her report should be amended. How can we amend, or propose amendments to, a report that we have not seen? We are being asked to amend her report although we have not actually seen what it contains.

It is not really our business to see Elspeth Attwooll's report. It is her report and she is rapporteur to the committee, and we have been invited to contribute to that debate. In effect, the comments that we send to Elspeth Attwooll will be in the form of the paper that is before us and she can reflect on them. If she wants to say, "I am not interested in any of your points of view," she is obviously at liberty to do that.

On the first point that Keith Raffan raised, the paper is designed to explain a number of the issues relating to the agency, but it also provides an outline of some of our concerns. To be fair to Alasdair Morrison, he has made some pretty firm points. For example, paragraph 32 states:

"The current proposed Administrative Board set up is not satisfactory."

That is definitely a conclusion on some of the points in the report.

We will always have lessons to learn and the situation is constantly evolving, but I wonder whether the approach that you outline would be the most effective. It is obvious that we cannot demand anything of a rapporteur, but it would be helpful if we were raising issues not in a vacuum but in the context of the rapporteur's report. It would be useful for us to say that some of our concerns have not been answered.

I take your point, but in terms of the constructively evolving relationship between the Scottish Parliament and the European Parliament, it would be useful for us to be able to see rapporteurs' reports—even if we did so in private—rather than simply raise concerns in terms of issues such as what we do and do not know about the proposed fisheries control agency.

Alasdair Morrison has identified the concerns of the committee and provided input to Elspeth Attwooll in that regard. In terms of diplomacy, that is the right way to go. He has outlined the elements that we are not entirely happy with and has made it quite clear what we would like to happen. For example, he says:

"There are claims … that, as currently worded, the Agency may be able to instruct Member States on what they can and cannot do."

The clear implication of those words is that the committee is not happy about that situation and views it as a matter of concern as it goes against the spirit of the new constitution. Elspeth Attwooll is the rapporteur and I do not think that it would be appropriate to tell her exactly what she should have in her report.

Alasdair Morrison has set out a nice compromise. He highlights areas that the committee is concerned about and suggests ways forward. It has been known for the committee to invite the committee rapporteur to meet the parliamentary rapporteur. Perhaps such a dialogue could take place between Alasdair Morrison and Elspeth Attwooll with a view to informing the final report on behalf of the committee. That dialogue would take place in private and the committee would be able to see the report at the end of the process. That would be a way of influencing the process using the correct diplomatic channels.

I am happy with the report, if the one or two suggested amendments are made.

I agree with Keith Raffan. It is not our report and we are not seeking to amend Elspeth Attwooll's report. All that we are doing is saying that we have read her report and are offering some intelligent markers that she might want to take into account. I suspect that she has thought of lots of them, but I am sure that there are one or two that she will not have thought of. We are giving her a bit of assistance, nothing more. In that sense, I think that our approach is a good one and that Alasdair Morrison has thought of lots of things to say.

The process points that we have discussed are on the record and we can reflect on them in relation to further issues. Although time has not been on our side in relation to any of the work connected to this matter, Alasdair Morrison has prepared a helpful report.

To summarise, in paragraph 5, we want to strengthen the point that John Home Robertson made on the extent of the agency's role in relation to non-EU waters. In paragraph 14, we will delete the section in brackets. Further, we will rewrite paragraph 32 so that it says something like, "The current proposed administrative board set-up is not satisfactory. It should allow for input from the regional advisory committees that include industry representation from the fisheries organisations." That should capture the point that Dennis Canavan made. We will also strengthen the part that deals with the work load of the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency. The report makes the point that that organisation is pretty much at full capacity and that it would be difficult for it to enforce any additional responsibilities that it had to undertake. That point is well made.