Examination of Witnesses (Questions 427-439)
Mr Frank Strang, Mr Stephen Noon and Mr Paul McCarthy
1 MAY 2008
Q427 Chairman: Can I start by thanking
you all very much for coming. It is enormously helpful to us,
as we get to the second half of our inquiry on the Common Fisheries
Policy, to hear the voice of the Scottish Executive. This is a
formal evidence session so a transcript will be taken. You will
get the opportunity to correct any slips and errors that have
crept in. Normally at this stage I have to say that the session
is being webcast and that somewhere out there there may be some
poor soul who is listening. We have never had any evidence that
that is the case but today we are not even making the pretence
that there is the possibility that somebody will be listening
out there because we are not being webcast. Would you prefer to
make a general opening statement and then we will get on to Qs
and As?
Mr Strang: Very briefly, Chairman. Thank you
very much for the opportunity to give evidence. We are very glad
that you have come to Peterhead. The first thing I should do is
apologise on behalf of the Cabinet Secretary, Richard Lochhead.
There will be some statistics today but the important statistic
to start with is that, at just under nine pounds and at 11.58
on Monday morning, Fraser Lochhead was born, so you will understand
why he is not here.
Q428 Chairman: I hope you will convey
our congratulations and best wishes.
Mr Strang: I am Frank Strang, Head of Sea Fisheries
Conservation in the Marine Directorate of the Scottish Government.
Mr Noon: I am Stephen Noon. I am Senior Policy
Adviser to the First Minister.
Mr McCarthy: I am Paul McCarthy, Policy Executive
at the Scottish Government for Stock Conservation and Negotiations.
Mr Strang: The reason we are glad you have come
to Scotland, and we will not go into all the statistics; some
of them are in our paper, is the importance of fishing to Scotland.
It is important in terms of our culture and heritage, obviously,
but, as I hope you will have seen today from your visit to the
market and the harbour, also in terms of our future. It is an
important industry, an important sector, and because fishing is
important the CFP is therefore important. You will have seen the
Scottish Government's view that the CFP has not served Scotland's
interests and that we would rather be out of it, and we will be
exploring alternatives to the CFP. We are aware that under the
current constitutional position withdrawing from the CFP is not
an option and so we are very happy to be involved in your work
and other work to achieve radical reform of the CFP in the meantime.
Q429 Chairman: I suppose we ought
to start with that and explore that policy statement that you
have made, that you would rather be "out of it", recognising,
as you say, that under the present constitutional arrangements
that is not possible. Let us put the constitutional arrangements
aside for one moment. Let us assume there is not a constitutional
impediment. How would you get out of it?
Mr Noon: Europe has certain realities. Denmark
and the UK are not members of the euro. Ireland is voting on the
EU Treaty and if the Irish people do not support the EU Treaty
it will not be ratified across the Union, so Member States have
the ability to influence wider policy across Europe in their own
national interest, so part of the mechanism of how the EU works
is how we would negotiate our way out of the CFP.
Q430 Chairman: But it is part of
the acquis.
Mr Noon: What I would say to you is that it
is perfectly within the ability of governments to negotiate in
their national interest. That is demonstrated by the UK not being
part of Schengen, it is demonstrated by Denmark not being part
of the euro and it is demonstrated by Ireland, a small country
of similar size to Scotland, having an influence in the people
of Ireland in their referendum being able to decide whether or
not to accept the European Treaty and if they do not accept it
the Treaty does not go ahead. Member States have got influence,
the ability to work in their national interest.
Mr Strang: The words "look at alternatives
to the CFP" are quite important. In other words, it is not
about us taking our ball away and playing with it elsewhere. It
is about the fact that we believe the CFP has not been in Scotland's
interests, and actually we believe the CFP is not particularly
in Europe's interests, and so we are exploring alternatives to
the CFP, I guess, conscious (as you are) that it is due to expire
in 2011. We believe it is in the interests of Europe to have alternatives
to the CFP.
Q431 Lord Cameron of Dillington:
So you would what, have private waters? How do you share your
waters under those circumstances?
Mr Strang: We are about to set up an expert
panel to explore these alternatives. The honest answer to you
is that we believe it is not serving our interests. We believe
there are problems with the policy (as you do too, of course),
and we believe there are good examples out there in the international
sphere. We are very conscious that international stocks do not
respect boundaries and it has to be an international solution,
but there are good examples out there—Norway, the Faroe
Islands, Iceland and other places—and we want to learn from
them and see what alternative models there are for international
fisheries management. We do not have the answers; that is the
point, but the timescale that you have, the timescale for the
expiry of the current CFP, is the timescale that we have in mind.
Q432 Chairman: Can I just check this
point? There is an enormous difference between working towards
a reform of the CFP or something to replace it with the agreement
of other Member States and saying that you will withdraw from
something called a Common Fisheries Policy. If you say that the
policy is to withdraw unilaterally from the Common Fisheries Policy,
not trying to reform it, which I understand is your position,
is that correct?
Mr Noon: We have to work within the reality
of where we are at the moment, so we cannot withdraw from the
Common Fisheries Policy today, but what we can do is suggest improvements
to the Common Fisheries Policy.
Q433 Chairman: So it is not a policy
of withdrawal?
Mr Noon: It is a reality of where we are today.
Q434 Chairman: What is that?
Mr Noon: That we do not have the ability in
Scotland to decide on that sort of issue.
Q435 Chairman: I understand that
the First Minister wishes to have a referendum fairly quickly
on independence. If, say, that was successful, and I make no value
judgments on the basis of whether that is a good thing or a bad
thing; I just want to get the practicalities and the technicalities
right, Scotland would be in the position—and this is not
clear—of either applying for membership of the EU or continuing
in membership of the EU. It does not matter which, does it?
Mr Noon: It is pretty clear that we would continue
to be members of it.
Q436 Chairman: Again, that is not
my point, but if we accept the position of continuing in membership
of the EU, that must bring with it acceptance of the acquis
and there is no example of a state seeking membership of the Union
that has negotiated a permanent change to the acquis.
Mr Noon: As I said to you at the start, there
are political realities within the EU, and Member States have
got—
Q437 Chairman: I do not understand
that. You are saying it as a formula. There is something called
the Common Fisheries Policy. That is embedded in the Treaty. The
only way you get treaty changes is through unanimity. Do you agree
with that?
Mr Noon: That is the point I was making in relation
to Ireland. The people of Ireland have the ability in a referendum
to say yes or no to a treaty that affects the whole of Europe.
Scotland would have that same ability.
Q438 Chairman: But the boot is on
the other foot.
Mr Noon: I would disagree with you, with respect.
If the Scottish people wanted withdrawal from the Common Fisheries
Policy and had the ability to decide on a European treaty in a
referendum and rejected that treaty, that would block that treaty
for the whole of Europe. Scotland is a Member State and, as you
said, there has to be unanimity in treaty changes. That gives
Scotland huge influence in terms of negotiating policy positions
that are in our national interest. There are the examples I gave
to you about Schengen and the euro. The euro is an important common
policy for Europe but Member States are not part of it. In the
news a few months ago there was discussion and thought that perhaps
some Member States might have to pull out of the euro, so, just
in terms of the political reality, Scotland negotiating a withdrawal
from the CFP is within that mainstream of what happens in Europe.
Q439 Chairman: The political reality
is that Scotland would require the unanimous agreement of all
other Member States to change the Common Fisheries Policy and
get some form of exclusion from it. Do you honestly believe that
all other Member States, if Scotland was a separate member of
the EU, would turn round and say, "Yes, Scotland can leave
the Common Fisheries Policy"?
Mr Noon: An example I would refer you back to
is Denmark and the Maastricht Treaty. When the Danish rejected
the Maastricht treaty in a referendum Europe had to go back and
make an accommodation that suited the Danish national interest.
| 
