Examination of Witness (Questions 841-859)
Mr Roddy McColl
11 JUNE 2008
Q841 Chairman: Good morning. Thank
you very much for coming. I suppose it would have been easier
all round, if we had had the time and the opportunity, to see
you when we were in the north-east of Scotland, and I regret that
we did not have that time but it is very good of you to come down
and meet us in London. Thank you very much indeed. Would you prefer
to start off by making a brief opening statement and then go on
to the question and answer session, or would you prefer to go
straight into questions?
Mr McColl: Thank you, Lord Chairman. I will
make a few brief comments and explain what the association represents
and then take it into the question session after that.
Q842 Chairman: Okay.
Mr McColl: Good morning, Lord Chairman and members
of the committee. The Fishermen's Association Ltd was incorporated
as a company limited by guarantee in September 1995. It is a UK
fishing industry trade protection association with members representing
both off-shore and on-shore interests. It has some 250 members
in Scotland, England and Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is
represented on the Association by the Northern Ireland Fish Producers'
Organisation, in England we have the South Devon and Channel Shell
Fishermen's Association and the on-shore interests are represented
by the Scottish Ship Chandlers' Association, which represents
some 14 member firms from Shetland to East Lothian. I am the secretary/manager
of the association. I am a Scottish solicitor. I have been involved
in representing fishing industry organisations for some 36 years.
The objectives of The Fishermen's Association (FAL) as far as
UK and EU fisheries policies are concerned, are to manage, through
the restoration of national control, those fisheries falling within
the UK exclusive economic zone (the EEZ) in an effective, sustainable,
equitable and transparent manner with the full co-operation of
all stakeholders to maximise the socio-economic and food production
benefits for the nation. Those are my opening remarks, Lord Chairman.
Q843 Chairman: Thank you very much.
Could you give us an outline? Are individual fishermen members
of your association?
Mr McColl: Yes, there are individual members
in the north-east of Scotland. The other members are represented
through the affiliates, the Northern Ireland Fish Producers' organisation,
the Ship Chandlers and the South Devon and Channel Shell Fishermen.
Q844 Chairman: How many, say, in
the north-east of Scotland, individual members would there be?
Mr McColl: Including affiliated members, probably
in the region of 100, but I am not counting---. There are also,
of course, the levy payers, the fishermen, the fishing vessels,
and we have about 35 to 40 of these.
Q845 Chairman: Your written evidence
did not mince words, did it? It was fairly "in your face".
Clearly you are not the greatest fan of the Common Fisheries Policy;
not that there are many great fans of the Common Fisheries Policy.
Mr McColl: As I am sure you have probably realised
in taking evidence.
Q846 Chairman: There is an interesting
point that you make in about the fourth paragraph. It says, "It
is entirely misleading to refer to the reform of the CFP. The
CFP is equal access to the common resource not the management
regime", and you point out that the management regime has
been a derogation since 1983. You conclude, "It is naive
to believe that other Member States are going to be content for
all time to allow a discriminatory principle to override EU law
of equal access to the common resource." I suppose the argument
is that it has been there since 1983. In all the conversations
that we have had with representatives of the Member States, the
first thing they bang on about is the importance they give to
relative stability. I do not see how the perspective that we are
getting from Member States indicates that they are going to want
to move to open access to a common resource.
Mr McColl: May I also ask if that applies to
Spain, because over the years, since Spain has become a member
of the European Union, it has attempted on a number of occasions
to seek to change that distributory policy and they have been
very vocal and they have not succeeded so far in their attempts
through the European Court of Justice. I think that they will
continue to seek to ensure that their fishermen obtain what they
were properly promised when Spain acceded to the European Union,
i.e. equal access to the resource.
Q847 Chairman: When we spoke to the
Spanish representative in Brussels, you are absolutely right in
saying that they clearly want at least an adjustment to the present
outcome of the application of the principle of relative stability.
They were not clamouring to throw it overboard altogether. Of
course, Spain is one Member State, and the overwhelming weight
of opinion from other Member States that we talked to was that
actually relative stability was the primary policy objective that
they sought, that they wished to defend.
Mr McColl: I accept what you are saying, of
course, that that is the evidence that you have taken. I continue
to remain sceptical, given the fact that this is the most discriminatory
and principled policy within the EU, and I cannot see how the
Commission will allow that to continue to operate for ever and
a day.
Q848 Chairman: It has been there
for 25 years?
Mr McColl: It has been there for 25 years. That
does not mean to say that it will continue for another 25 years.
It will be interesting to see what happens in 2012 as to whether
or not there might be changes in the regime which might even impact
on the in-shore fisheries around the UK and other Member States
which are currently protected.
Q849 Chairman: You also say that
"the political end game for the EU is an integrated EU fleet,
operating in EU waters under the central control of the EU Commission
being told where, when and with what to fish". What is the
evidence for that?
Mr McColl: I think that the centrist policy
of the EU has shown that it has been unresponsive to the needs
of local communities, local fishing interests. The evidence is
the statements, the actions of the Commission and the EU over
the last 30 years. It is the evidence of huge decommissionings
in Member States, particularly in the UK, it is the whole gamut
of regulations that have demonstrated this.
Q850 Chairman: That adds up, do you
think, to an integrated EU fleet operating in EU waters under
central control?
Mr McColl: I sincerely believe it does. I have
seen the demolition of fleets, supposedly for the purpose of matching
resource to the effort. I am extremely sceptical as to whether
or not that was anything other than a determined socio-economic
policy decision to manage people in a way that has caused so much
distress to fishing industries throughout the EU, to their families,
to their communities.
Q851 Viscount Brookeborough: You
have told us who you represent. Who do you not represent in the
fishing industry, what proportion of fishery industry producers?
Mr McColl: I cannot say I have ever done a calculation
to determine what the percentage is of the industry represented
by The Fishermen's Association. The industry must be in the region
of 12,000 people, perhaps, when you look at the on-shore jobs.
It is said that there are five on-shore jobs for every off-shore.
We represent a proportion, but just how significant is that.
Q852 Viscount Brookeborough: I am
interested because presumably you tried to increase your membership,
and so why might some people not wish to join, and when you talk
about managing things, and so on, to the extent that you do, and
your views are quite extreme, maybe there are those who might
not agree.
Mr McColl: Whether they are extreme or not is
for others to judge. I think they are measured in many respects
as a result of the experience that has been gained, suffered some
might say. We have many sympathisers who might not join for a
variety of reasons. For example, some people might not join because
we are unable to provide work off-shore in the guard-ship industry,
where vessels are contracted to guard oil installations. There
is a monopoly almost of that work and it is something that we
have not been able to break into, so people might not join us
for an economic reason.
Q853 Viscount Brookeborough: In your
opening remarks I think you said that your aim was to manage resources
in the fishing industry. To what extent do you have any management
powers?
Mr McColl: No, that would be for the UK to manage,
not for this association to manage. I am sorry if I misled you
on that.
Q854 Lord Wallace of Tankerness:
Mr McColl, you indicated in your remarks that your association's
view is that the United Kingdom should exclusively manage I think
it is fisheries falling within the United Kingdom's exclusive
economic zone, which would be contrary, but could sit hand in
glove with the Common Fisheries Policy as we know it. Is it fair
to say that your association would like the United Kingdom to
leave the Common Fisheries Policy? Is that a fair characterisation
of your association's policy?
Mr McColl: No, it is not, Lord Wallace. The
association has a rich variety of opinions about the European
Union, but it has never stated that it supports withdrawal of
the UK from the European Union.
Q855 Lord Wallace of Tankerness:
I did not say the European Union, I said the Common Fisheries
Policy.
Mr McColl: I misunderstood. Yes, absolutely.
To withdraw from the European Union fisheries policy, the CFP,
and to have repatriation of sovereign rights over the marine resources
to the UK.
Q856 Lord Wallace of Tankerness:
If we were to follow you down that line, but even outwith the
Common Fisheries Policy we saw international obligations under
the international law for the sea where states are required to
co-operate regarding the sustainable harvesting of fisheries resources,
can I ask what mechanisms your association would envisage of the
way in which we could actually discharge that international obligation
given that, as it were, a haddock does not recognise when it is
entering into the United Kingdom's exclusive economic zone?
Mr McColl: Yes, that is right. We have many
examples throughout the world of co-operative management. You
have it in the North Sea, of course, because the EU, representing
the Member States, is required to enter into third-party agreements
with other sovereign nations—Norway, Faroe, Iceland. The
position there, of course, would be that if the UK has managed
to secure the repatriation of the right to manage the marine resources
within the EEZ on the median line, then it would be a player in
that co-operative management regime. The EU would still be there,
but the UK would be there as well.
Q857 Lord Wallace of Tankerness:
You think the UK would get a better deal arguing from without
than arguing from within, given it is bound to be the same people
you would have to negotiate with?
Mr McColl: I believe that it would. There have
been soundings taken over many years by people within the industry
which have indicated that would be the case. Whether or not that
is a mirage, is another matter.
Q858 Chairman: Can I probe a little
bit. The position of the Association is for the United Kingdom
to leave the Common Fisheries Policy, and you have no views as
an association on the United Kingdom's membership of the European
Union. Is that a summary of your position?
Mr McColl: The association has taken no view
on the EU membership by the UK.
Q859 Chairman: But is that being
absolutely frank, because the Common Fisheries Policy is embedded
in the Treaty and it is not possible to be a member of the EU
without accepting the Common Fisheries Policy? So if the ultimate
policy objective is to get free from the Common Fisheries Policy,
it inevitably means leaving the EU. The one follows the other.
Mr McColl: It may or may not follow the other.
The Association has certainly not taken a decision on the EU membership
by the UK. There are people within the Association who probably
wish to see the UK come out of the EU completely.
| 
