Item 4 is on petition PE365, which is from Mr Iain MacSween. We asked for further information on the petition, particularly on the definition of property rights. Does John Home Robertson, who was interested in the petition, feel that it is appropriate for us to deal further with it or should we refer it to the Rural Development Committee?
Official Report · Committee
Petition
Fishing Industry (Fixed Quota Allocations) (PE365)
Speakers
Choose an MSP to read only their contributions- Irene Oldfather Lab 9
- John Home Robertson Lab 4
- Lloyd Quinan SNP 4
- Ben Wallace Con 3
- Nora Radcliffe LD 1
- Dennis Canavan Ind 1
- Stephen Imrie 1
The record
23 contributionsI know a bit of the background to the petition; it involves a rather circuitous argument. The petition refers to fishermen's property rights over fish stocks. It identifies the problem of some fishermen selling their property rights to people in other countries. The petitioners cannot have it both ways: either they have the property right or they want to do away with it. The briefing paper summarises the issue and the committee cannot usefully say any more about it. The petition is the responsibility of the Rural Development Committee.
The issue of quota hopping and the transfer of licences is related to the green paper on the common fisheries policy, work on which is being done by the Commission and the member states. The committee's report "Reforming the Common Fisheries Policy: a Blueprint for negotiations" indicated that we frown on the practice, but it recognised that the practice relies on people who sell licences.
There is a market for them.
Regional management would change that.
It might change it, but it might give rise to further problems if people demand compensation for the loss of their property rights. The issue is fraught with difficulties.
The committee has taken a general view—we expressed our opinion in our report on the common fisheries policy. However, the matter is for the Rural Development Committee, so we will pass it on.
As a way of helping the petitioner, we could perhaps write to the Commission to find out how the discussions on cross-flagging and quota hopping are going. The Commission recognised those problems when it came to us and said that it was considering measures to prevent them. We could prompt the Commission to see how far it has got with that.
What do other members feel?
I am not sure that this is an issue for the Rural Development Committee. It is a rural matter, but it hinges on legal issues. It is about a definition of Scots law in relation to European law and international law on property rights. It has nothing to do with the Rural Development Committee and will only be bounced from that committee somewhere else. I recommend that it should be passed on to one of the justice committees if we do not consider it further.
Lloyd Quinan is right.
There is no question about it. The issue is one of definition. The petition makes it clear that the issue is about"ascertaining with whom the property rights to the Nation's fish stocks lie".That is a purely legal matter, not a policy matter.
The final paragraph of the e-mail that expanded on the information that we received seems to suggest that, when a vessel is decommissioned, its allocation is handed on. Surely that defeats the whole purpose of decommissioning. If we are going to ask questions of clarification, we should try to do so fairly quickly.
Shall we agree to refer the petition on to one of the justice committees, asking it to consider those specific issues?
Can we get Christine Boch's confirmation that it is a legal matter? Would it be possible for us to have a graph that tells us exactly where this fits into the bigger picture leading ultimately to the Commission?
You have made a good argument and persuaded us that the petition should be referred to one of the justice committees. John Home Robertson agrees with you. We have cross-party support for that suggestion.
We frequently get that. What are you giggling about?
We will refer the petition to one of the justice committees and ask for a report back to this committee on its views about the issues that have been raised.
I presume that the Public Petitions Committee received the petition first. Did that committee send it to us alone or to any other committee for comment?
Christine Boch informs me that it would be appropriate to refer the petition to one of the justice committees. Dennis Canavan's question is whether it has already been referred to one of those committees.
Stephen Imrie
link
Although the petition has been with the Parliament for some months, it has not been referred to one of the justice committees. The Public Petitions Committee referred it to us when we were deep in the throes of an inquiry into the common fisheries policy.
We are all agreed that the best course of action is to refer the petition to one of the justice committees.
I am sure that that committee will be grateful.
In this meeting
Everything on 12 Feb 2002 →- Scottish Parliament European Committee Tuesday 12 February 2002 (Afternoon) Committee business · 1
- Item in Private Procedure · 1
- European Council (Scottish Executive Briefings) Committee business · 16
- Water Framework Directive Committee business · 29
- Petition Petitions · 23
- Convener's Report Procedure · 36
- Scrutiny Committee business · 6
The type of each item (debate, statement, questions, members’ business and so on) and the times shown are worked out by this site from headings, the chair’s opening words and the Official Report’s running timestamps. They are not the Parliament’s own classification. Text: the Scottish Parliament Official Report.