Official Report 209KB pdf
Fishing Industry (PE804)
Item 4 is a petition by Carol MacDonald and Morag Ritchie, calling on the Scottish Parliament to use its influence to return control over its fishing industry to Scotland. Members will have seen from the papers for this meeting that the Environment and Rural Development Committee agreed that it would not consider the petition, but Sarah Boyack's letter draws to our attention her committee's previous work on a related issue. Members will also have seen the letters from the Minister for Environment and Rural Development to the Public Petitions Committee, dated 17 April and 13 October last year, setting out the Executive's position on the common fisheries policy and fisheries management. The Public Petitions Committee heard from the petitioners themselves, and in 2003 they gave evidence to the then Rural Development Committee as part of its inquiry into general issues facing the fishing industry. The petitioners have not offered us further information in support of the petition.
I have a view—surprise, surprise. When we discussed this matter in committee before, I fully acknowledged that the detail of the fishery arguments was something that should be discussed elsewhere. However, the petition also refers to the constitutional aspects of the issue and to the legality of the common fisheries policy. There remains some dispute over that, although I believe that the minister has moved some way to recognising that perhaps it would be possible for Britain to stay within Europe and end the common fisheries policy agreement.
I do not agree with the objectives of the Cod Crusaders, but their case should be heard; indeed, it appears that the Parliament has heard their case. Phil Gallie's point is on the constitutional position of the CFP, which, as he fairly says, is a completely different issue from the implementation details of the CFP. If we were to hear evidence from the petitioners on that point, we could not hear them on their own. That would be tantamount to opening up a new inquiry, and we would want to involve constitutional lawyers and others who would be able to tell us about the practical implications—for example, could we put boundaries in the sea to stop the fish swimming? That is a flippant question, I know, but there is an issue about the fact that fish do not recognise international boundaries. That would be a major undertaking, and I am not saying that we should not do it, but I would want to see a paper outlining just what we would be embarking on before we agreed to go down that path.
I guess that we would be talking about Westminster ministers, the Cod Crusaders themselves and other witnesses.
I tend to go along with Jim Wallace's view. We would have to scope out what might lie before us. If we took on the petition, there would be various implications and we do not have up-to-date information from the petitioners. For example, although it was their intention to put the matter to the European Parliament there is no evidence that that has happened. I am wary of taking on something by default that ends up being a major commitment when a great many other matters are before us.
Is it the committee's view that we should ask Alasdair Rankin and the clerking team to consider the implications of what would be required to do the petition justice and to come back to the committee at the next meeting with a paper suggesting how we can move forward?
The paper should include their views on whether someone else should take the petition on.
The petition has been round the houses. The Environment and Rural Development Committee has given it back to us, saying that it feels that we are the most appropriate vehicle for it.
The petition has been put before the Scottish Parliament, so it is up to us as a Parliament to deal with it. I recall that somewhere along the line the clerks established that the petition has not gone to the European Parliament. I would be more than happy if the clerks were to prepare a paper along the lines that Jim Wallace suggests. That would be a reasonable step forward.
That seems to be my suggestion the wrong way round. I am not sure that we should invite petitioners in to comment at the point in the process when we are considering a scoping paper on whether we should do a piece of work.
I am saying that we should invite them back once the scoping paper has been produced. I agree on the scoping paper element; I give total support to that suggestion.
A scoping paper will be prepared for 14 March, if that is feasible.
Does that give the clerks sufficient time?
Nick Hawthorne looks very confident. When Emma Berry comes back he will tell her to do it. We are moving forward on the matter. That is good.