Petition
Fishing Industry (PE804)
Our first item of business is consideration of petition PE804, in the names of Carol MacDonald and Morag Ritchie, which calls on the Parliament to use its influence to return control over the fishing industry to Scotland. As members will recall, at our previous meeting we considered a scoping paper on the petition and agreed to ask for a paper from the committee's legal adviser setting out whether it would be possible for the United Kingdom to withdraw from the common fisheries policy and what the legal consequences of doing so would be. Members have all received a copy of the legal briefing. Once we have considered it, we can decide whether to proceed to the second and third steps set out in the scoping paper, which are to invite the petitioners and a representative of the UK Government to give evidence.
I open up the meeting to discussion on the matter.
This is something that I have been pushing for in recent times. I am pleased that the Parliament's directorate of legal services has laid out precisely what the circumstances are; I believe that they fall into line with past arguments about the potential for pulling out of the CFP. As I read the legal briefing, we would break international law if we were to come out of the CFP unilaterally without declaring our intention to withdraw altogether from the European Union. However, the briefing makes it clear that the UK has options for renegotiating the CFP, particularly with respect to articles 32 to 38 of the Treaty establishing the European Community. On that basis, I cannot argue anything other than that such negotiation would be a UK responsibility.
However, the fact remains that Scottish fishermen undertake the major part of fishing activity in the UK these days, so it seems reasonable to me for us to determine that we should at least bring a UK minister here to allow him to talk about the potential for renegotiating articles 32 to 38, without prejudging what he might say or any arguments that could be made against the desirability of renegotiating on that basis. I welcome the legal briefing, which I feel allows us to make a decision on the way forward.
I, too, welcome this legal opinion. It is worthy of note that it says that it would be possible for the UK Government to renegotiate the CFP and for the UK to withdraw from it. Some of us might think that it is a pity that the powers to take such decisions lie in Westminster and not in this Parliament, but the legal briefing shows that there is a legal way for the UK to withdraw from the CFP while remaining in the European Union. Indeed, in a letter to which reference has probably been made many times in the chamber, the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department told a fisherman in November 2003 that it was correct that, as a matter of UK constitutional law, in theory it would be possible for the UK Parliament to amend or even repeal the European Communities Act 1972. Various private members' bills have been introduced in the House of Commons that show legal ways for the UK to withdraw from the CFP while remaining within the EU.
Given that the argument is not just about legal opinions but about political objectives, the committee should be able to use its influence on the UK Government, as requested by the petitioners. I hope that one of the committee's political objectives is to listen to the quarter of a million Scots who felt that it would be in the interests of the fishing communities around our coasts for Scotland to have control over its waters and fishing policy. Phil Gallie's idea of inviting the UK minister to come to the committee is a good one. The Cod Crusaders should also be invited, to give their response to the legal opinion.
There are two fundamental points in the discussion, one of which is serious and one of which is extremely silly. The serious point is about the conservation of fish stocks and the future of fishing communities around our coasts. That issue is complicated and I have no doubt that ministers in the Environment and Rural Affairs Department are addressing it day in, day out, in the work that they do in Scotland and in their dealings with UK ministers and their colleagues on the council. The problem is intractable and requires a lot of difficult decisions to be made.
The silly point is the constitutional one, to which there are two extremes, both of which we have heard already in this brief discussion. One group of people would like to break up the European Union or turn it into something completely different, and another group of people would like to break up the United Kingdom and turn it into something completely different. That is a legitimate political discussion but it adds nothing to the big issue of what needs to be done to conserve fish stocks and to secure the future of fishing communities around the coast of Scotland. It would serve no useful purpose whatever to pursue that discussion. While I acknowledge that a tentative option is offered in the paper, discussion of it would amount to posturing. The Parliament would probably have more credibility if we were to focus on the real issues of fish conservation, environmental protection and the economic future of coastal communities in Scotland than if we were to indulge in rather silly antics about the constitution of the EU or the break-up of the UK.
You also seem to have raised an issue about how the common fisheries policy is managed.
How decisions are taken about the CFP is a legitimate discussion, which I am sure ministers would be content to address. However, to come out of the CFP would be dotty.
When the committee was first presented with the petition, there was some concern about it among committee members. The petition had been signed by a substantial number of people but I think I am right in saying that, at that stage, it was not clear whether the petitioners had had a chance to have their say. We now know that the principal petitioners had an opportunity to give oral evidence to the Public Petitions Committee and that, according to the scoping paper, they gave evidence to the Environment and Rural Development Committee on the management of fishing policy generally. Like John Home Robertson, I think that the issue of the management of fisheries, the implementation of the CFP and the vital December council meetings are legitimate issues for the Parliament to examine, albeit through the Environment and Rural Development Committee.
Having got the legal opinion, the committee's time should not be taken up considering esoteric constitutional points. The opinion indicates that it would be theoretically possible to withdraw from the CFP by negotiation, to which all the other member states would have to agree. As paragraph 4 of the legal briefing states,
"Whilst it might be theoretically possible, in practical and political terms this possibility seems unlikely to come about."
The next item on the agenda is consideration of our work programme, which includes practical and political measures that we might have some chance to bring about or influence. It would be wrong for the committee to spend time constitutional navel gazing.
I welcome Stewart Stevenson to the committee.
Thank you for your courtesy in allowing me to visit the committee and contribute to the discussion.
Members will be aware that I represent the most fishing-dependent constituency in this Parliament and that the biggest fishing port in Europe is within my constituency, so this matter goes well beyond esoteric constitutional points, if I might pick up another member's phrase. It is a matter of fundamental importance to people in my constituency. I will however agree with the point that it is fundamentally a matter of conservation.
I will not delay you too long and stretch your patience, convener. The legal briefing that the committee has before it is perfectly adequate in its own way, but I hope that it will not mislead committee members into believing that it is not possible to amend the treaty. Indeed, I have before me quite a long list of amendments that have been made to the treaty over the years. In particular, I point to the Official Journal of the European Union, reference L 29, 1.2.1985. The matter of fishing, and jurisdiction over fishing, was the fundamental issue that led to the 13 March 1984 amendment to the treaty in relation to Greenland, where fishing is virtually the only sustainable industry. The issue caused Greenland—an area that is not a member of the European Union but part of a member of the European Union—to seek and gain exit from the European Union because it wished to exit from the common fisheries policy. Therefore, it is beyond peradventure that it is possible to negotiate one's way out. Of course, that does not necessarily imply that that is the right thing to do. That is a different argument. Whether it is the right thing to do is much more a matter of conservation and politics.
It is the right thing to do, in a sense—we need only consider the Faroes, which operates its own conservation policy and its own policy on fishing in its waters. As a result of its very different approach—it is absolutely clear that we cannot follow that approach within the European Union—its fish stocks and fishing industry are healthy.
There is absolute objective evidence that a different approach can be taken that will deliver conservation. The arch-conservationists in all this are the fishermen. If they do not conserve the resource that they exploit and on which they depend for their living, they will have no long-term future.
I conclude by saying simply that there is a choice. We can continue to pursue the conservation of our stocks within the framework of the Council of Ministers and the meeting that takes place in December each year. Successive years have shown that that approach goes nowhere in addressing the needs of the Scottish fishing industry. Alternatively, we can seek to return responsibility for fishing to UK control—I am making no constitutional points of any kind here, and the petition is quite clear about what it is asking for—take the opportunity to consider the experience of the Faroes and its success in conservation, and apply that to the waters around the UK.
Scotland would be a particular beneficiary of that approach. The petition is signed by 250,000 people—it is the biggest petition that we have ever received—and it merely asks the Parliament to use its influence to return control over the fishing industry to Scotland and the UK. The committee might wish to consider that it could help to deliver that aim rather than seek to punt the issue into the long grass.
I hear clearly what Stewart Stevenson says, but unfortunately he has not been party to previous discussions that have brought us to this point today. I recognise the points that he and others have made about conservation and management of stocks, all of which are very legitimate points for members of the Scottish Parliament. However, our discussions were quite clear.
I draw the committee's attention to paragraph 4, under the heading "Background", of the update paper on the petition, which states:
"Members agreed that the petition was essentially a constitutional matter of withdrawal from the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and therefore the focus of any engagement … should concentrate on the constitutional issues".
That is how we have arrived at the point that we have reached today. We now have the advice from our legal adviser, which is impartial. I know that Richard Lochhead is making political points, but we asked the legal adviser to provide us with a legal and non-political opinion. Clearly, we have that now.
We have already agreed that the committee's attention would focus on constitutional matters. There are arguments about the common fisheries policy, conservation and management, all of which we could sign up to. I know that Richard Lochhead is a member of the Environment and Rural Development Committee, which I understand has given significant attention to those matters. It was appropriate for Jim Wallace to make the point that, at the beginning of the process, we were not clear about what attention had been given to the petition. We have now been provided with clear background information on what has happened to it.
The clear legal advice is that the committee does not have a locus in this constitutional matter. Frankly, to consider it would be an inappropriate use of committee time, given that we have clearly set the parameters, which are constitutional and do not relate to the issues that Stewart Stevenson talked about. That is why we agreed to consider the petition. We are not the Environment and Rural Development Committee. From the paper that has been presented, it is clear that we have brought the matter to a reasonable conclusion.
Every member who has spoken thus far has accepted the validity and accuracy of the legal briefing that we have received, which is significant. This is an important petition. In their campaign so far, the petitioners have used the Scottish Parliament very effectively and perfectly legitimately. Not only has this committee considered the petition, but the petitioners have spoken directly to the Public Petitions Committee. The issues that they have raised have also been considered by the Environment and Rural Development Committee.
At the previous meeting, we said that once we had seen today's legal briefing, we would consider, among other things, whether to invite the petitioners to respond to the committee or to ask the UK Government to give evidence on the issue. Phil Gallie has suggested that we do the latter. However, if I put myself in the petitioners' shoes, I would see the real significance of the legal briefing that we have received today as the confirmation that the UK Government is perfectly able—theoretically at least—to deal with these matters in the way in which the petitioners would like. It seems logical to me that, if the petition is a practical proposition on the part of the people who signed it—I believe that it is—and is not simply trying to make a point, to no particular effect, the issue must be raised in the Westminster Parliament.
If the European and External Relations Committee expressed a preference for carrying on with its intended work programme and invited the petitioners to raise the matter with the Westminster Parliament, it would not be fair to call that kicking the petition into the long grass, as Mr Stevenson did, given that it has been aired considerably at no fewer than three different committees of the Scottish Parliament. We have taken the petition as far as we reasonably could. The petitioners ought to take a great deal of encouragement from the briefing, but I think that at this stage of their campaign they have exhausted the offices of the Scottish Parliament.
I am not in favour of disrupting our work programme along the lines that Phil Gallie recommended or of bringing back the petitioners, because they have already appeared before a parliamentary committee.
The essence of the legal advice that we have received is in the last sentence of paragraph 4 of the briefing. On the possibility of withdrawal from the CFP, it says:
"Whilst it might be theoretically possible, in practical and political terms this possibility seems unlikely to come about."
With all due respect to our legal advisers, I say that we asked them for advice not on practicalities or political possibilities, but on the legal possibility. If we are to follow up the matter, we must consider the practicalities and political possibilities. The people who signed the petition are not concerned simply about legal niceties or constitutional matters; they are concerned about jobs in the fishing industry and the important part that it plays in the Scottish economy.
The best person to answer questions on the practicalities and political possibilities might be a UK Government minister. I notice that one possibility that we are asked to consider in paragraph 8 of the update paper is
"Inviting a representative from the UK Government to come and give evidence on this issue."
If we are to take the matter forward, we should consider doing that, although whether a representative from the UK Government would come to our committee is another matter. We owe it to the petitioners at least to try every means at our disposal to obtain answers on their behalf.
I wholly support Dennis Canavan's comments; he covered some of what I was about to say. Politics is the art of the possible; it does not involve shying away from difficult and complex negotiations. The legal briefing says that withdrawing from the CFP is possible.
For the UK Government.
The people who elect the Parliament expect political leadership and expect us to represent their views—that is why we have the Parliament—and the petition was signed by 250,000 Scots.
The petition asks only for the Scottish Parliament to influence the UK, where the power resides; it does not suggest that we have a locus in withdrawing Scotland or the UK from the CFP. It is important to have that discussion. The petition does not ask for something that is illegal or outwith the Parliament's remit.
In the interests of justice, it would be good to give the Cod Crusaders the opportunity to respond to the legal opinion at least.
I request a little bit of clarification from Irene Oldfather, if that is permitted. I absolutely accept that her view is that the committee has no locus in relation to the matter, but she said that the legal briefing tells us that the committee has no locus. I do not believe that it says that. Will she point to the part of the briefing that says that?
I would have to look through the briefing again to answer that, but I think that it makes it clear that the responsibility for withdrawal would lie with the UK Government.
I will pick up Richard Lochhead's point. Every petition to the Scottish Parliament could be prefaced with the words "seek to influence the UK Government", so that everything that is reserved could become a devolved matter. I accept that that might be desirable from Richard Lochhead's political perspective but, like other members, I prefer to concentrate on matters that we can influence and do something about, such as structural funds, which are on our agenda. I am not unsympathetic to the points that are being made about the CFP, but we can do nothing about them. Committee members will not even reach an agreed opinion on whether we all wish to withdraw. If we went round the table now, we would not agree on whether to withdraw from the common fisheries policy.
Further work on the petition would take up more committee time. We have examined for a considerable period an issue on which we will not reach agreement and over which we have no authority. To continue to examine it would be an inappropriate use of committee time. I accept that Richard Lochhead sees the issue differently, because, as I said, he would like every petition to the Scottish Parliament to use the phrase "seek to influence the UK Government", which would bring all reserved matters within the competence of the Scottish Parliament. However, I believe that we should stick to dealing with the issues for which we have responsibility.
Other members have made valid comments about conservation and the management of fisheries, which are issues in relation to which we have a legitimate authority. However, the issue that is raised in the petition is not within our remit and I am opposed to taking any further action on it.
Convener, can I clarify one issue?
No.
Before we continue, I say that we would all agree that democracy would not be best served if every member of every committee had to agree to everything that the Parliament did.
I believe that members have had a constructive debate that has served a purpose. However, the one exception to that has been John Home Robertson, who is a friend in some ways, but who always uses the word "silly" with respect to any suggestion on European issues with which he disagrees. I wish that he would refrain from doing that. Sincere comments have been made. John Home Robertson talked about the break-up of Europe, but no member has suggested that. I suspect that the remark was aimed at me, but my record shows that I have never at any time, perhaps to my shame in some circles, advocated total withdrawal from Europe—that is not the objective.
In asking for the legal briefing, our objective was a clarification of the legal situation. As I said at the beginning, the legal advice contains nothing that any of us would challenge. Irene Oldfather's comment about constitutional matters is valid, because that is the perspective from which the committee has considered the issue. A plea for UK ministers to give evidence would have the aim of allowing us to examine and challenge constitutional arrangements. We could seek the ministers' advice on what articles 32 to 38 of the Treaty establishing the European Community mean and whether the UK Government could seek to influence the introduction of better management of fishing stocks. I address that point to Jim Wallace. That would not mean pulling out of the CFP altogether. However, the briefing supports renegotiation of articles 32 to 38 of the treaty.
I will not say that we would insult the 250,000 people who signed the petition, but we would do them a disservice if we did not take the petition to the nth degree and give it the consideration that it deserves. The nth degree would be, as Dennis Canavan suggested, bringing along UK Government ministers to talk to us about articles 32 to 38. The desirability of major changes to those articles might be a political issue that the committee cannot decide—it might be better for the Environment and Rural Development Committee to deal with that issue. We could at least write to that committee with the results of our legal briefing and suggest that it may want to consider the issue again.
I, for one, am totally against abandoning the petition. If we did further work on it, we would not create false aspirations; instead, we would be searching for truth, which, above all, is what the committee is here to do.
I will summarise what has been said on the recommendations in the paper, which have been expanded slightly during our discussion. We have various options on the table. One is to do nothing and to close the committee's consideration of the subject. Another is to invite a UK minister to attend. Another option is to invite the Cod Crusaders to attend and respond to the legal advice or to invite both the UK minister and the Cod Crusaders to come. Other members have mentioned inviting the Cod Crusaders and the UK minister to respond, which might be different from their attending, which is why I have split those suggestions.
I ask for a firm proposal so that we can move the matter forward.
We have undertaken a considerable amount of work on the petition. That has been worth while and we have provided an opportunity for views to be aired. We have clarified what exposure the information has had within the Parliament. The point that, I think, Jim Wallace made—
We have to bring the item to a close. We have had all the arguments and have done the clarification; I now need firm proposals.
Jim Wallace's point that the UK Government is the body to deal with the petition is the persuasive point for me. Therefore, I propose that the committee should not take further action but draw attention to the legal briefing and the fact that, as it says, the UK Government is the appropriate body for any further petitioning or lobbying.
I propose that the committee invite the UK minister and the Cod Crusaders for one short evidence-taking session.
My proposal is the same as Richard Lochhead's but it takes on board Irene Oldfather's comments. We should ask the UK minister to come and to address articles 32 to 38 of the Treaty establishing the European Community in particular. I am sure that the Cod Crusaders would also be welcome.
Are there any counter-proposals?
I am thinking aloud. I agree that we should invite a UK Government minister—I suggested that previously—but if that minister is simply going to say that there is no way that the UK will withdraw from the common fisheries policy, there might be some merit in broadening out our questioning to try to get the Government's views on amendments to the common fisheries policy, in an attempt to address some of the points that the petitioners raise.
That is the point that I was making in suggesting that we concentrate on articles 32 to 38 of the Treaty. To be honest, somewhere along the line, amendment of those articles might prove the UK hand in the annual negotiations on fishing. What Dennis Canavan said is absolutely right.
I take it that Mr Gallie and Mr Lochhead are in agreement with that addition from Mr Canavan.
Yes.
Does anyone else have anything to say? It looks as though we will have to go to a vote on the matter.
Can I clarify what Dennis Canavan is proposing? He says that we might have a renegotiation not to withdraw from the common fisheries policy but to improve or amend it, but I understood that we were being asked solely about withdrawing. To go further into how the common fisheries policy can be improved—and, heaven help us, there is room for improvement—is not this committee's function; it is a matter for the Environment and Rural Development Committee. I would not want us to propose something that does not fall within our remit.
Is the reality not that the minister would come along with specific reference to the articles of the treaty that Mr Gallie mentioned—which seem to be the constitutional articles, as far as I can make out—but that, once we have him here at our mercy, committee members would ask questions that were way beyond our remit and why he was invited? After that, we may decide whether some of the points that were raised should be referred elsewhere.
On Jim Wallace's point, amending or improving the CFP clearly falls within the committee's remit. We have previously produced a report on fisheries policy within the European Union. That report, in which we recommended a regional decentralisation of the common fisheries policy, was very well received.
The clerk reminds me that we have also previously reported on the EU fisheries control agency.
Two proposals are on the table. We will have to take a vote. The first proposal is that the committee takes no further action on the issue and on the petition. The other proposal is that a UK minister and the Cod Crusaders be invited back to the committee for a short evidence session.
The first question is, that no further action be taken. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
Against
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 4, Abstentions 0. My casting vote is required. I vote against the proposal.
The second question is, that the Cod Crusaders and a UK minister be invited along to a short evidence-taking session at the committee. Are we agreed?
No.
There will be a division.
For
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) (Ind)
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con)
Lochhead, Richard (North East Scotland) (SNP)
Against
Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)
Home Robertson, John (East Lothian) (Lab)
Oldfather, Irene (Cunninghame South) (Lab)
Wallace, Mr Jim (Orkney) (LD)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 4, Abstentions 0. The convener's casting vote is again required. I vote for the proposal that we have an evidence session on the matter and that a UK minister and the Cod Crusaders be invited to attend. [Interruption.] I know that members are excited by all that voting, but I ask them to be quiet as we must now move on.