Official Report 295KB pdf
Prohibition of Fishing with Multiple Trawls (No 2) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2006 (SSI 2006/602)
The Subordinate Legislation Committee has made comments on both the Scottish statutory instruments that we are considering today, which have been included in members' papers. Do members have any comments on the Prohibition of Fishing with Multiple Trawls (No 2) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2006?
It seems that we are being asked to pass a negative instrument before there has been time for full consideration of the implications. As you know, the purpose of the amendment order is to prohibit all trawls of more than two nets in Scottish waters. However, I find myself wondering why the order has been laid, given that, although it will ban the use of four nets by Scottish fishermen, it will have no effect on fishermen of other European Union nations, which will mean that the Dutch and the Danes will continue to use four nets. It is discriminatory against Scottish fishermen and defies the EU's claims to be a level playing field. Further, according to much of the evidence that has been brought before me, far from acting as a conservation measure, dropping down to a two-net rig might have an adverse effect on conservation.
Are there any other comments?
Although it is not my job to respond to Ted Brocklebank, I refer him to the first line of paragraph 3 of the regulatory impact assessment, which says:
We hear that there are between three and five vessels. Can we have some indication of where they are fishing at the moment? I would be interested to know that because it would give me some idea of the import of the situation and what particular stocks they are after.
We can certainly write to the minister and raise the various questions that have been asked by the committee today.
I have a small point to add to the letter. I understand that other EU states are going to adopt similar measures and I would be interested to know their timescales. The UK often enthusiastically enforces these measures while other EU member states are years behind. It is imperative that all states move at the same pace.
We can defer consideration of the order until next week. Would it be appropriate to write to the minister with our various queries, see what answers we get and then reconsider the order at next week's meeting?
How many multiple-trawl boats are there? There seems to be a very small number; there may be only three and they may have been given a derogation to undertake research.
Sure. We do not know the exact number; it is between two and five.
We do not know what the small number is. If there are only three vessels and they have been given a derogation to do research, that would alter the argument.
I am perfectly happy to pass the order today, on the clear understanding that ministers will respond to legitimate questions, as they always do.
We have a week, so we can defer the order, consider it and pass it next week. It will give people comfort if we get a response from the minister before we consider the SSI.
Welfare of Animals (Transport) (Scotland) Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/606)
Does anyone have any comments on the regulations, or are we content?
We welcome the derogations that have been won and will watch with interest what happens with the angles of ramps, because it has not been demonstrated that that is necessarily an effective animal welfare measure, although it is going to be imposed in time.
Yes. I think that a certain amount of leeway has been given.
The Executive may decide to give further consideration to the matter. Perhaps it will press for a derogation on that issue, too. The Executive has done well. I welcome the derogations that it has won.
If there are no other questions or comments, are members content with the regulations and happy to make no recommendation to the Parliament?
Members indicated agreement.
We will have a short suspension to allow witnesses to come to the table for item 4.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—