Examination of Witness (Questions 860-879)
Mr Roddy McColl
11 JUNE 2008
Q860 Chairman: I am not saying whether
people wish or wish not. You described yourself as a solicitor
and you know, in terms of European law, that a Common Fisheries
Policy is part of the Treaty.
Mr McColl: I am aware of that, yes.
Q861 Chairman: So how is it possible
legally to be a member of the EU and not accept the Common Fisheries
Policy?
Mr McColl: I think that the consequences of
the UK withdrawing from the EU fisheries policy might result in
what you have described. That is not for The Fishermen's Association
to concern itself with. They are purely concerned with this objective
of repatriation of the fisheries policy to the UK.
Q862 Chairman: Do you accept that
in terms of European law and the way in which the whole EU is
legally constructed that it is actually not possible to be a member
of the EU and not to accept the Common Fisheries Policy; that
that is an automatic relationship?
Mr McColl: There is a relationship. Whether
it is automatic or not, I am not entirely sure. Although I am
a Scottish solicitor and have some knowledge of EU law, I am not
an expert in it, so I will have to not answer that. I am not trying
not to be frank, I have come here to be as frank as possible and
to answer your questions as honestly as possible.
Chairman: Sure. Thank you.
Q863 Lord Plumb: Could I probe one
little bit further on that point? Supposing, in the light of what
the Lord Chairman has said, but it may be a hypothetical, you
were able to withdraw from the fisheries policy, have the fishermen
considered what their situation might be if they were out and
the other 26 countries were in?
Mr McColl: I think many of them would relish
the thought of being able to have a more participatory involvement
in managing their affairs at national and local level and entering
into arrangements with other states, which would benefit them
as well as giving the other Member States access to UK waters,
provided, in terms of NPOs, there is sufficient available to allow
that to be done.
Q864 Lord Plumb: In other words,
you would have to be in the same situation as Norway?
Mr McColl: Norway, Iceland, Faroe; all countries
who have control over their own waters.
Q865 Lord Palmer: The role of the
RACs is prominently featured in all the evidence sessions we have
had. What has been your experience of them and how do you think
they should evolve in the future, and what would, in your view,
be the best way to realistically fund them?
Mr McColl: As you will probably have realised
from the written submission, we are not particularly a fan of
RACs. To some they represent a sensible move towards regionalisation
of the European Union fisheries policy by ensuring that there
is greater stakeholder involvement at the regional and local level,
but, in our view, RACs are what they say they are, regional advisory
committees, and as such they do not have any management role.
Some have proved to be weak, others perhaps, like the North Sea
RAC, have proved to be a bit more robust, but at the end of the
day it is the Commission which will determine whether or not they
will take into account the advice that is given by the RACs. Competence
for fisheries has been transferred to the Commission. I believe
it would be illegal for the Commission to devolve proper management
to these bodies. I am aware that the Scottish Government has supported
them and continues to recognise them as being a useful intermediary
and no doubt will be helping to fund them in the future.
Q866 Lord Palmer: Does your organisation
think perhaps they ought to be disbanded altogether in that they
only came in in 2002?
Mr McColl: I think the concept of an advisory
committee is an excellent concept, bringing into the fold the
relevant stakeholders. Going back to what you hear again and again,
if we have national control, such a concept should, and must,
be introduced into the management regime for the UK.
Q867 Earl of Dundee: One view has
been that a strategic decision should be made at the centre and
those of technical management devolved. Do you share that opinion
or not share it, or do you half share it and wish to qualify it?
Mr McColl: If I may refer to the written submission
that was made to the committee by David Thompson, he dealt with
this centrist policy of the EU very, very ably. Looking at the
range of fishing resources, fishing methods, areas to be fished,
the local consumption patterns, local fisheries culture, he concluded,
and quite rightly so, that a central model is insensitive to local
needs and is not one that has proved, in the shape of the EU fisheries
policy, to be anything other than a disaster for fishing communities.
So I do not believe that a central model is the right way forward,
I believe it should be a devolved method, and the appropriate
technical conservation method, measures, effort control, could
still be introduced for the effective management of the resources.
Q868 Earl of Dundee: But could there
be evolution in this direction? We know that there is going to
be change anyway in the next year or so. At present it might seem
unsatisfactory to seek an accommodation between centrist strategy
and local devolution for the reasons which you give, but if that
is going to alter anyway, could it evolve? Could a new relationship,
perhaps, constructively evolve between a sensitive strategic management
and a pragmatic local devolution?
Mr McColl: It might be possible to achieve that.
I understand that the Scottish Government is trying to look at
alternatives to the Common Fisheries Policy and, as a result of
the debate on that, which of course will involve the Commission,
that might result in that evolution. That evolution is not, of
course, what my association would like to see. They would prefer
revolution.
Q869 Chairman: Counter-revolution
as well.
Mr McColl: Lord Chairman, I was hesitating to
use that expression in this House, but I did pass the statue of
Oliver Cromwell on the way in! I hope that has answered your question,
Earl of Dundee.
Q870 Chairman: When we talked to
the Commissioner in Brussels a few weeks ago, he was working towards
a view of a more devolved management system because, basically,
most observers of the Common Fisheries Policy say that it is centralist,
it is regulation driven, it is top-down and all the things that
are really pretty hopeless, but he was working towards a model
that was saying really that the EU role would be to set macro
policy at a level perhaps expressed in terms of mortality rates
for particular stocks and then go down to a regional body, maybe
or maybe not building upon the Regional Advisory Committees, and
say to that body, "Come up with your own management plan
to make sure that these stock figures are achieved and, if that
management plan is sensible, go ahead and deliver it." Would
that not give a degree of ownership and this degree of basically
stakeholder involvement that is missing at the moment? Would that
not be better than what we have got?
Mr McColl: It would be better than what we have
got, I agree with that, but it would only be a step in the ultimate
objective.
Q871 Chairman: You are a hard-liner,
are you not?
Mr McColl: I have had experience, Lord Sewell,
of being involved in the fishing industry, lobbying on their behalf,
for a long time and have seen many arguments put forward which
are very genuine, very reasoned, not being accepted and the resultant
consequences for many people—quite a lot of heartbreak over
the years—and that helps to shape and influence you. I am
sure, as a former fisheries minister, you will have taken some
very difficult decisions knowing that consequences were going
to be quite difficult. So that is where the hard line comes from,
Sir.
Q872 Chairman: Do you think it would
be possible to get this sort of buy-in through a form of regional
management?
Mr McColl: It may be possible, but it would
not be one that would be favoured by my association. The trouble
with Mr Borg, or the Fisheries Commissioner, and I have read this
as well, but at the same time he is stating that the fleet requires
even more reduction, and it must now be a fuel-efficient fleet,
but we seem to have beneficial crises that come along that help
to drive the Commission's objectives. Cod recovery is, in my view,
a beneficial crisis, and now we have got this major problem with
the world-wide increase in fuel, and that has also again helped
to drive the Commission's objective of reducing the size of the
EU fleet. We do not have one yet, but that is the objective.
Q873 Viscount Brookeborough: Taking
what you have just said, do you therefore believe that the fleet
should stay at the size it is when, quite clearly, the resources
are not there to maintain it at that size?
Mr McColl: No, I do not actually.
Q874 Viscount Brookeborough: So what
are you going to do about it?
Mr McColl: What I would like to say is that
the UK's EEZ is probably one of the richest in marine resource
and fish resource terms, and if we had the opportunity to manage
that ourselves, there would probably not be a necessity to reduce
even further the number of boats in the UK fleet.
Q875 Viscount Brookeborough: But
you were talking about EU-wide. You said the EU policy, I think,
is that there should be further decommissioning, if you like?
Mr McColl: Yes.
Q876 Viscount Brookeborough: But
you said you disagreed with that. How do you then envisage that
the fishing effort will remain the same, but, quite clearly, regardless
of specifying different stocks in particular, the fishing effort
far exceeds the capacity of the sea to produce?
Mr McColl: But does it? Where is the evidence
for that? Is that evidence tainted in some way by political persuasion?
There is a lot of scepticism about what is relied upon. There
are decisions taken on the basis of information that is less than
robust.
Q877 Viscount Brookeborough: So you
believe that if there was a free-for-all, without quotas, without
anything, because, quite clearly, if those could fish to their
capacity then—
Mr McColl: No, perhaps you misunderstand me.
I do not believe it should be a free-for-all. I believe that there
will be have to be restrictions. Whether these restrictions are
by way of effort control only, which some other countries have
in place, or by individual transfer of quotas which other countries
have in place but which would not suit the Scottish fleet for
example, in fact I do not think it would suit the UK fleet, there
would have to be restrictions. There could not be a free-for-all.
Q878 Viscount Ullswater: Perhaps
we could therefore turn to control and compliance, because whether
it is under EEC rules or UK rules, compliance is obviously very
important. You state in your evidence that conservation and sustainable
exploitation of fisheries resources requires compliance. I think
there is no doubt about that. You also state that full compliance
needs full viability. I would like to know how you square that
particular circle and how can compliance best be achieved?
Mr McColl: I agree that, unless something is
owned, it is not going to be looked after properly; so we come
back to the need for ownership to be with the nation state. When
that is in place we will have a simpler and a more relevant set
of legislation which would, I believe, help to achieve compliance
with fishermen buying into the need for compliance: because if
they are being targeted with rules and regulations that they feel
are designed to put them out of business, they are going to find
ways and means to continue their business, unless they decide
just to hand in the keys, walk away and let the bank take their
business. I think that if we had appropriate control within the
nation state, we would be able to licence the boats, to permit
them to fish in our waters, fishing under our laws, rules, regulations
and enforcement policy that is in place.
Q879 Viscount Ullswater: I am sorry
to interrupt you, Mr McColl, but what we are looking at is the
Common Fisheries Policy as it exists at the moment, and my question
was directed to: how do you see compliance being done by your
association members with the existing regime rather than the regime
that you would like to see in place?
Mr McColl: Clearly they have to comply with
the laws of the UK. If they do not, they will face very severe
penalties, and in many respects it has taken them some time to
realise that compliance with the buyers and sellers registration
legislation has been for their benefit. They have taken that time,
but now they realise it has been essential for their future well-being.
I think that the compliance is proving to be much more robust
than it used to be, and there is very little fish that can be
called over-quota or black fish now. I would imagine that there
will be further legislation to ensure that the rules and regulations
of the fisheries policy are applied, I think that you might find
that administrative penalties will become stricter than they are
at present, and they have just been introduced, but all of that,
including the fact that if that is not handled sensitively, could
result in fishermen rebelling against what they see to be over-zealous
rules and regulations. So there has to be this balance between
trying to ensure that there is a management regime to protect
the stocks but also a regime that looks at the economic factors
of the fishing industry and the communities that they support.
| 
