Official Report 248KB pdf
We move on to item 7, which is on the remit and function of the EU's Fisheries Control Agency. The committee asked the clerks to prepare a briefing paper on the formulation of the agency, which Stephen Imrie will say a few words about.
We prepared the paper in a somewhat short timescale, so it might not be as comprehensive as it could have been if we had had slightly longer. We are indebted to colleagues in the European Parliament who assisted us with the core questions. We accept that members might have other questions on the Fisheries Control Agency, but the questions in annex A are those that we thought the committee might want to consider.
I welcome the paper's helpful detail. The clerks have set out three possible options. My preference is for option B. We have a current inquiry on promoting Scotland, so I do not think that we have the time for a full committee inquiry into the Fisheries Control Agency, as option C proposes. However, the issue is too important to leave to a further research paper, as option A proposes. It would be helpful if there was political direction from the committee, in the form of a committee member acting as a rapporteur—or reporter—and drafting a paper for the committee, as option B proposes.
I propose John Home Robertson as our rapporteur.
Let us wait until we get to that point.
My initial preference was for option A, then going on to option B. I agree with Irene Oldfather that we need more information. It would be useful for the committee to work with the European Parliament's rapporteur on the issue, particularly as she is a Scottish MEP. That would perhaps improve our relations with our members of the European Parliament, particularly that one. The work would be helpful to one of our major industries and we could learn a lot from working with the rapporteur on her respective committee. Option B is a good idea and is probably how we should go forward.
My view does not differ from that of my colleagues on this occasion and I am horrified by the contents of what we have before us. Keith Raffan referred to Elspeth Attwooll MEP, who is due to report on the issue by the end of October. Therefore, whatever we do must be done with a sense of urgency. Whatever we do, it will be well worth doing.
The committee's present commitments and time constraints make option C very difficult, if not impossible. If any committee member is willing to be a reporter, we should go for option B. If no one volunteers, we should go for option A.
In closing the discussion, I say that I am troubled by what the paper says about the direction of the initiative in contrast to where the Executive is going on the regional management of fisheries. The initiative does not sit comfortably with the Government's thinking. The political exercise must be undertaken. My view is that we need to pursue option B. It is important not to be diverted from completing the inquiry into the promotion of Scotland overseas but, equally, we should undertake that job of work. Mr Home Robertson's name was mentioned.
I am deeply flattered—if that is the right adverb or adjective; I am not sure—by Canavan's kind and generous thoughts. Option B is the right way to proceed, but I pass the buck to my colleague from the Western Isles.
I accept it.
I thank you for that. We will have the report by next Monday, if you do not mind.
We will have the draft by Friday evening.
I know that you lads from the Western Isles move at a cracking pace.
You will get the belt if you are late.
Previous
Deputy Convener's Report