Chamber
Plenary, 14 Jun 2001
14 Jun 2001 · S1 · Plenary
Item of business
Common Fisheries Policy
I will do my best.
I commend the report for the coherent way in which it presents the background, the evidence that was taken by the committee and our deliberations. I add my congratulations to the clerking team, who worked hard, long and to good effect to pull the report together and to frame our recommendations.
The EU green paper is refreshingly honest about the shortcomings of the CFP. It is generally accepted that the common fisheries policy has been, in many ways, a disaster. It needs, and is about to get, a radical overhaul. However, we should not disregard the fact that things would have been immeasurably worse without it and that some of the failings of the original CFP are rooted in the way that it has been operated by member states. That they did not always make full use of the flexibility and opportunities that the CFP offered is now water under the bridge, but useful lessons could be learned from having a good look at the current rules to see where opportunities were missed.
There is a horrible saying, that bad laws are made to be broken. That is untenable: bad laws should be changed or, better still, not made in the first place. The current CFP has fallen foul of the bad-laws-are-made-to-be-broken attitude. The new CFP must be acceptable and enforceable. In the last resort, policing can be done only by consent.
We must get the new CFP right. It is important that we pay attention to how we monitor it and how, once it is agreed and in place, we police it effectively. We need an EU-wide agreement on the management of fisheries. It is essential that that fulfils the twin requirements of maintaining fish stocks at sustainable levels and protecting fishing communities.
If we look at fishing from the top down, we see that it equals 0.2 per cent of UK gross domestic product. However, if we move the perspective and look from the bottom up, we see that fishing can account for 100 per cent of gross local product in some coastal communities. That is one reason why it is essential to get the new CFP right. We have seen elsewhere that a fishery can be depleted beyond the point of recovery and can collapse completely. It is unthinkable, but only too possible, that that should happen in the fisheries on which our communities depend. That is the other reason why we must get the new CFP right.
It is up to us to work with the other member states to devise a better policy that is informed by what we have learned from experience. The green paper recognises that we need to involve fishermen fully in developing policy for their industry. It is fair to say that, in the past, the fishing industry has been inclined to pooh-pooh what the scientists have tried to tell them. The industry is now coming round to accepting that the scientists were perhaps not too far adrift. Scientists must also recognise and respect the fishermen's knowledge and experience. Equally, we politicians and our officials must be prepared to listen to and respect such sources of expertise and good advice.
Whatever the shape of the new CFP, it will work only if all the parties that contribute to it feel that their contribution has been properly valued and taken into account in the final outcome and that the final outcome has been arrived at fairly and is workable. Those are easy sentiments to articulate, but achieving them requires a long process that will involve a lot of hard work and hard talking.
Our ministers and officers must apply themselves now to making contacts in all the other member states that have fishing interests to make the case for and argue the merits of what we want in the new CFP. The committee's report offers, as the title says, "a Blueprint for negotiations". It is not an end point, but—I believe and hope—a well-informed, well-founded and robust starting point. To borrow a phrase from "Masterchef", "Let's get talking."
I commend the report for the coherent way in which it presents the background, the evidence that was taken by the committee and our deliberations. I add my congratulations to the clerking team, who worked hard, long and to good effect to pull the report together and to frame our recommendations.
The EU green paper is refreshingly honest about the shortcomings of the CFP. It is generally accepted that the common fisheries policy has been, in many ways, a disaster. It needs, and is about to get, a radical overhaul. However, we should not disregard the fact that things would have been immeasurably worse without it and that some of the failings of the original CFP are rooted in the way that it has been operated by member states. That they did not always make full use of the flexibility and opportunities that the CFP offered is now water under the bridge, but useful lessons could be learned from having a good look at the current rules to see where opportunities were missed.
There is a horrible saying, that bad laws are made to be broken. That is untenable: bad laws should be changed or, better still, not made in the first place. The current CFP has fallen foul of the bad-laws-are-made-to-be-broken attitude. The new CFP must be acceptable and enforceable. In the last resort, policing can be done only by consent.
We must get the new CFP right. It is important that we pay attention to how we monitor it and how, once it is agreed and in place, we police it effectively. We need an EU-wide agreement on the management of fisheries. It is essential that that fulfils the twin requirements of maintaining fish stocks at sustainable levels and protecting fishing communities.
If we look at fishing from the top down, we see that it equals 0.2 per cent of UK gross domestic product. However, if we move the perspective and look from the bottom up, we see that fishing can account for 100 per cent of gross local product in some coastal communities. That is one reason why it is essential to get the new CFP right. We have seen elsewhere that a fishery can be depleted beyond the point of recovery and can collapse completely. It is unthinkable, but only too possible, that that should happen in the fisheries on which our communities depend. That is the other reason why we must get the new CFP right.
It is up to us to work with the other member states to devise a better policy that is informed by what we have learned from experience. The green paper recognises that we need to involve fishermen fully in developing policy for their industry. It is fair to say that, in the past, the fishing industry has been inclined to pooh-pooh what the scientists have tried to tell them. The industry is now coming round to accepting that the scientists were perhaps not too far adrift. Scientists must also recognise and respect the fishermen's knowledge and experience. Equally, we politicians and our officials must be prepared to listen to and respect such sources of expertise and good advice.
Whatever the shape of the new CFP, it will work only if all the parties that contribute to it feel that their contribution has been properly valued and taken into account in the final outcome and that the final outcome has been arrived at fairly and is workable. Those are easy sentiments to articulate, but achieving them requires a long process that will involve a lot of hard work and hard talking.
Our ministers and officers must apply themselves now to making contacts in all the other member states that have fishing interests to make the case for and argue the merits of what we want in the new CFP. The committee's report offers, as the title says, "a Blueprint for negotiations". It is not an end point, but—I believe and hope—a well-informed, well-founded and robust starting point. To borrow a phrase from "Masterchef", "Let's get talking."
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer (Sir David Steel):
NPA
The next item of business is the European Committee debate on motion S1M-2006, in the name of Hugh Henry, on reform of the common fisheries policy.
Hugh Henry (Paisley South) (Lab):
Lab
I start by paying tribute to Stephen Imrie and his clerking team, who supported the committee and have once again done a first-class job in producing this re...
Mrs Margaret Ewing (Moray) (SNP):
SNP
Will the member pay tribute to the fact that, in the Scottish fishing fleet, many people who have been directly involved have been in the van of measures to ...
Hugh Henry:
Lab
Although I acknowledge the member's comments, I should point out that people in the industry have also indicated that the industry itself must take some—not ...
Tavish Scott (Shetland) (LD):
LD
As Mr Henry noted, on Tuesday Franz Fischler said that there might need to be 40 to 50 per cent cuts in the fishing of certain stocks, including hake. Does h...
Hugh Henry:
Lab
I agree, but Commissioner Fischler has drawn attention to a problem that needs to be addressed. That should happen in the way Tavish Scott suggests.I know th...
Richard Lochhead (North-East Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
I congratulate the committee on its excellent, first-class report. I hope that the Scottish Government recognises the role that the committees are playing in...
Tavish Scott:
LD
Does Richard Lochhead accept the fact that the former eastern European countries that are entering the EU have no historic rights and simply will not have ac...
Richard Lochhead:
SNP
I could not agree more with Tavish Scott. I shall touch on the subject of protecting our historic fishing rights.The continuous expansion of the EU makes a c...
Mr Jamie McGrigor (Highlands and Islands) (Con):
Con
I congratulate the European Committee on producing the report.The issue is simple: fewer fish mean fewer jobs. One job at sea creates five jobs on land. The ...
Tavish Scott (Shetland) (LD):
LD
I associate myself with Hugh Henry's remarks, in what I thought was an important piece of analysis. I also associate myself with what Richard Lochhead said a...
Richard Lochhead:
SNP
As the member is aware, difficult negotiations will continue over the next few months to draw up the cod recovery plans. Does the member think that we should...
Tavish Scott:
LD
That proposal has some superficial attractions, but we must still go through the process, in which fishermen must be involved. As Richard Lochhead said, fish...
Irene Oldfather (Cunninghame South) (Lab):
Lab
When the European Committee first embarked on its inquiry, some members who were not from traditional fishing communities—I include myself in that category—f...
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Mr George Reid):
SNP
I call Stewart Stevenson.—Applause.
Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP):
SNP
Presiding Officer, and my new colleagues in all parties, thank you very much for the warmth of your welcome. It is much appreciated. I am sure that Brian Fit...
Alex Johnstone (North-East Scotland) (Con):
Con
May I be the first to congratulate Stewart Stevenson on his maiden speech in Parliament. While we are on the subject of congratulations, I thank the European...
Elaine Thomson (Aberdeen North) (Lab):
Lab
I welcome the opportunity to participate in this important debate. I congratulate Stewart Stevenson on his first speech in the Parliament. I am not a member ...
Richard Lochhead:
SNP
The member mentions the cost of tie-up schemes. The SNP accepts that decommissioning is an unfortunate necessity, but we make the point that if the Executive...
Elaine Thomson:
Lab
If the reform of the CFP is to be effective, it must rebuild fish stocks so that decommissioning of the fleet is not required to continue for ever. We want t...
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Patricia Ferguson):
Lab
I ask Elaine Thomson to come to an end.
Elaine Thomson:
Lab
The fish processors working group report produced a raft of recommendations that were accepted by the minister. I hope that those recommendations will allow ...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Lab
I call Nora Radcliffe and ask her please to keep her comments to under four minutes.
Nora Radcliffe (Gordon) (LD):
LD
I will do my best.I commend the report for the coherent way in which it presents the background, the evidence that was taken by the committee and our deliber...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Lab
We now move to the winding-up speeches. I apologise to the three members whom I have not been able to call.
George Lyon (Argyll and Bute) (LD):
LD
I start by endorsing the sentiments expressed by most members in congratulating Hugh Henry and the European Committee on an excellent report. I read it for t...
Mr McGrigor:
Con
I take on board what George Lyon says, but too often he goes on about 18 years of Tory misrule. He has sat there for four years and done absolutely nothing.
Members:
Four years?
George Lyon:
LD
Jamie McGrigor may have been here for four years, but I have been here for only two. He has obviously lost track of time in some hostelry somewhere.I will mo...
Mr Lloyd Quinan (West of Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
Will the member give way?