Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, March 15, 2017

Official Report 628KB pdf

---

Subordinate Legislation

---

Inshore Fishing (Prohibition of Fishing and Fishing Methods) (Outer Hebrides) Order 2017 (SSI 2017/48)

---

Animal Feed (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2017(SSI 2017/38)

Under the third agenda item the committee will consider two negative instruments and whether it wishes to raise any issues when reporting on them to the Parliament. Members should note that no motions to annul the instruments have been lodged and no representations have been made to the committee about them. However, I know that one or two committee members would like to comment; I ask John Finnie to go first.

I will speak to the Inshore Fishing (Prohibition of Fishing and Fishing Methods) (Outer Hebrides) Order 2017. It is not my intention to move a motion to annul the order, but I would like to highlight some points, which the committee may wish to pick up on at a future date.

No one could object to the policy objective of protecting fish stocks, which is outlined in the policy note. The policy note also says the intention is to

“better reflect current fishing practices”

and we know that there is a blanket ban on fishing in some areas.

A constituent has been in touch with me about the order and has shared the correspondence that he has had with the Scottish Government, in the form of Marine Scotland. I quote from a couple of passages:

“Turning now to your main concern that a precedent is being set whereby if scallop dredging is prohibited in an area then diving for scallops may similarly be curtailed.”

12:45  

The territory here, which even experts tell me is quite complex, is about overlapping areas of responsibility. I will not go into details on that. The letter goes on to say:

“On your questions over the proposed benefits of the closure. The amendment will bring diving for scallops into line with current restrictions on dredging for scallops and help to limit effort in the fishery.”

Those are two entirely different situations: one is a sustainable fishing method; one is entirely destructive. People need make only a cursory examination online to see video footage of the effect of these fishing methods.

The policy note, under the heading “Financial Effects”, says that, in relation to the business and regulatory impact assessment:

“the policy will better complement current fishing practices”

—I do not accept that—

“by helping to ensure that shellfish are caught at times that are most suitable for market conditions.”

I do not think that conservation should be driven by market conditions. I ask what the situation is outwith those times.

My principal frustration is about who will monitor and police this regime. It is my understanding that it will be very challenging. We have a series of maps here—we can see the locations and everything else. Unless we have adequate enforcement, on the last day before closure, or on the first day of closure, a dredger could go through there and cause immeasurable damage. That would not be the impact of more sustainable methods, such as diving. There is a question of proportionality here, which I do not think has been achieved. Members may sense frustration in my voice about the shortcomings.

I am aware that I am not shy at making suggestions for our work programme, but I hope that, at some future point, the committee will look at the matter. I think, following on from some of the Brexit and fishing discussions this morning, that this will become an issue. I would like us at some point to consider the cumulative impact of the various orders and the monitoring that will take place to ensure that they are complied with. I am concerned that we have a big bundle of paper that means nothing, except that it affects those who are going about their business in a sustainable way.

I looked at the 10 consultation responses—nine have been published and one has been withheld for whatever reason. It is worth making the point that this is an update to a 30-year-old plan. It is not creating new areas on the map; it changes the boundaries. The only new area appears to be the Loch Roag area, where static gear fishing for shellfish will be prohibited during three months from May to July—that is designed to protect the area’s shellfish stocks. As one reads the detail, that appears to be the intention.

I looked at the responses to the consultation and, while there were arguments on both sides, in favour and against, the thrust was pretty firmly in favour of what the Government has brought forward. I absolutely make common cause with John Finnie that it is a highly complex area and is often quite controversial in very particular local areas. My knowing that is precisely why, unusually, I read all the consultation responses, which I would not normally do for something like this. It is proper that, at some point, we consider for the work programme the general subject of the inshore fisheries. The numbers are small in macroeconomic terms, but hugely economically important to very small and vulnerable communities and it is quite proper that John should make that point.

I do not wish to see the order impeded; it should proceed.

Like John Finnie, I looked at all the maps and tried to equate the measures to people on the ground and the effect that they would have on individuals as well as on the environment. I found that quite difficult to do. Although he might not want me to align myself too closely with him, I probably do align with John in this situation.

The Government has promised to introduce a bill on inshore fisheries this session, which the committee will have the opportunity to consider. I would like the committee to consider the issues in a lot more detail at that point. Like Stewart Stevenson and—I suspect—John Finnie, I do not want to prevent the order from going ahead. However, I found it difficult to understand and to make relevant comment on, given the information that was provided.

I will let Rhoda Grant and Richard Lyle comment. After that, I will ask for the committee’s decision on the order.

I asked the local fishermen’s association about the order because I did not know how it would work on the ground. I was told that the order was part of the regional inshore fisheries group’s negotiations and that they had worked extensively on it. They said that they were happy with it and felt that the decision making was good because the fishing interest had been involved.

I worry about some of the Scottish statutory instruments that come to the committee, but the order before us seems to have been welcomed, to an extent. Not everyone will be happy with all of it, but decisions seem to have been made on the basis of the needs of the local area and of conservation. There is a balance to be struck.

I take cognisance of the point that John Finnie made, and I note that the impact assessment accompanying the order states:

“Marine Scotland Compliance is responsible for the monitoring and ... Fishery Officers have the power”.

I agree that we should look at including this in our work programme, especially given the comments that we heard earlier from Alistair Sinclair, the national co-ordinator of the Scottish Creel Fishermen’s Federation. We should be looking not just at the big issue of fishing in the waters up to the 200-mile limit, but at the inshore fisheries.

I take it that the committee’s view is that we should delve further into the issues when the inshore fisheries bill is introduced.

On that basis, does the committee agree that we have no recommendations to make on the order?

Members indicated agreement.

If there are no comments on the Animal Feed (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2017, does the committee agree that we have no recommendations to make on the regulations?

Members indicated agreement.

Meeting closed at 12:52.