Dr. Ruth Brennan:

I will start with the question that was asked by Deputy Kenny. I will provide a response to the first question about fishing the non-quota species all year around but I also invite responses from my colleagues. My understanding is that the traditional practice is to fish non-quota species seasonally when one can fish other fish stocks. From the point of view of sustainability, logic dictates that seasonal fishing does impose less pressure on stocks, so if one is fishing species that are traditionally fished seasonally and one fishes them non-seasonally, which is all year around, there is going to be more pressure on the stocks, which could lead to overfishing. I cannot give figures on that but that is the case in terms of seasonal and non-seasonal fishing.

Deputy Kenny also asked me about more detail on the engagement between local communities and policymakers in Barra. First, it was a different context in Barra so, yes, there was a very concrete outcome to that. The context I was working on in Barra was a conflict over the creation of a marine protected area under the habitats directive. Many people within the local community were really pushing the policy environment away because they did not want this additional layer of bureaucracy on their already well cared for marine environment. Six years of research was involved, so to cut a long story short, a very unusual co-management process developed from the dialogue between Marine Scotland and key people on the island, which gave local islanders the opportunity to lead the management of the marine resources in terms of that marine protected area. They were funded by Marine Scotland to advise it on the best way to manage that marine protected area, which had been designated on the basis of a scientific case. They looked at how best to manage the marine protected area through the eyes of local people so that the ways they had of managing the marine environment that were not necessarily visible within the policy environment could be brought in and made visible within the policy environment. It was a way of bringing the policy environment and local people's ways of knowing and doing together. Marine Scotland proposed that it would be at the table as a co-management partner, if invited, and that its role would be on tap rather than on top. It really valued the local community's knowledge and ways of doing things. In the meantime, Brexit has intervened so it is a very different story now.

Deputy Kenny's third question was whether Commissioner Vella had made further suggestions on how island communities could help themselves. He did not. He was talking more generally and he was responding to suggestions that the European Commission should be doing something in order to get more quota into the hands of small-scale fishers. He was making the point that it is within the competence of the member states rather than the European Commission to decide who the quota is allocated to, and in that vein, small-scale fishers should be taking the initiative to help themselves as well.

I wish to respond to one other point, which was from Deputy McConalogue, on the opposition to the Bill on the grounds of it being unfair to inshore fishers that are based on the mainland. I noticed from all the presentations in the first session that there was much bandying around of the terms "equality", "equity" and "discrimination". We need to be very precise about the terms that we are using. First, we need to go back to paragraph 20 of the Common Fisheries Policy and think about why it is there. It specifically recognises island communities, their different circumstances and their need to be especially recognised and supported. The reason that is there is because they are in a different position and they do need special support. We also need to think about the difference between equal treatment and equitable treatment. Equal treatment means that we treat different people equally. We give them the same thing. Equitable treatment means that we provide a level playing field, which I believe is what this Bill is trying to do.

It would be easier to explain this using a visual. I saw a very good visual a few weeks ago explaining the difference between equal and equitable. Two people were trying to see a football match over a wall that blocked their view. Those two people were of different heights. One was tall and one was short but neither could see over the wall. They were given equal treatment and they were given two stools to stand on that were exactly the same height so they were raised up by the same amount. One person could now see over the wall but the other person could not. That is equal treatment. Equitable treatment means that the person who is shorter is given a slightly taller stool, and now they are both able to see over the wall. That is why it is so important to use those terms precisely. What the Island Fisheries (Heritage Licence) Bill is trying to do is to establish an equitable playing field, and that is why it is speaking directly to paragraph 20 of the Common Fisheries Policy, which recognises the special support that is needed for island communities.