Fishing Rights Discussed at Public Meeting

Commentary by J. Brock (FINN)

Due to the importance of the debate on fishing rights, that item will be transcribed first. Former Cllr. Lewis Clifton (LC) brought up this very emotive subject. At the root of the debate was a policy paper that pointed to giving people with permanent residence permits the rights to gain fishing rights as well as status holders. He felt that the Councillors present should tell the audience where they stood on the issue. Former Cllr. Clifton pointed out that in developing countries around the world, status holders had the right to acquire these rights whereas those with permanent resident permits did not. Cllr. Cockwell played Devil’s Advocate.

RC: As you notice, you sat on the Committee as did Stuart and we talked about it in the working group at considerable length. And, as you say, there are two opinions on this. I think the first part of the question is being told that we cannot actually just allow property rights to go just to status holders. I find that rather objectionable and I think we have the right to do that.

However, I have a fairly open mind on it. I am very conscious of the need to privilege our own people and develop our own status holders, trying to develop our own industry as far as possible with our status holders.

I am also very aware of the fact that in order to expand, particularly in marine farming, we are going to need quite a bit of inward investment. And, what I am nervous about – I haven’t come to a conclusion – but I am nervous about the concept of restricting the property rights solely to status holders, I notice that it may restrict our ability to encourage internal investment, which is what we are looking for.

It is going to be a very expensive issue. The fishing industry, who are in the Falklands at present, status holders, have had a very rough time in the last few years. They don’t have huge amounts of capital. And, what I want to see is our marine farming take off in a way, which is sustainable. It has to be done on a large scale. It can’t be done with just an odd farm here and an odd farm there. It’s never going to work. There has to be a considerable tranche of money put into it to make it work.

If I can be convinced that, giving status holders the sole right to own the property rights – if I can be persuades that’s the case, I would certainly support the concept of status holders being the only people that can hold property rights. However, I need to be convinced and at this moment, I am not totally convinced. I would like to see it but nobody has actually come to me and shown me that we can actually encourage this sort of investment that it would require if the property rights were solely given to status holders.

Q1 – P1: Would permanent residents become status holders eventually?

RC: That’s right. That’s correct.

Comment: Not always.

MS: But they might.

RC: They are able to apply.

Q2-P1: Do we currently give fishing licences to non-status holders?

MS: Just to be clear about this, we are talking effectively about property rights, which is a new concept in the management of the fishery and we are talking not only marine farming but the fishery as well. We are talking about property rights..

RC: That’s correct. That’s correct.

MS: And it’s an entirely different concept. I am not sure, Lewis, that you have the right to require that everybody give their opinion in public but if anybody else would like to make a point.

Q3-P1: We are being told that status holders over here aren’t going to get ownership rights are you really talking about people who only hold residential permits?

MS: It’s a choice between status holders, basically people who are on the Electoral Register, or people who hold some form of residence permit.

Q4-P1: If you decide that anyone should have the right to own fishery rights or marine farming rights, or property rights, can you actually limit it to what occurs in the water? Are you not throwing open to abuse the ownership of land in the Falklands?

RC: No It’s a separate issue.

Comment: It may be a separate issue at the moment but what I am suggesting is you can hardly say you can own property here with your marine farm and your infrastructure but you can’t own property there.

JC: But someone with a permanent residence permit can own property. That was one of the reasons permanent residents are given it..

Comment: The question is because Richard thinks we need outside capital for marine development then non-residents.

RC: No. No. I’m not suggesting non-residents should have property rights. No. I have not said that. What I am saying is by making it purely status holders – and as I say, I’m easy on the subject but in some ways, I’m playing Devil’s Advocate – having purely status holders, it may restrict our ability for inward investment. If we were slightly freer and said that permanent residents permit holders may hold property rights subject to the agreement of Executive Council or something, that would actually make us look slightly less insular. I don’t want to make ourselves look so insular that we can’t get the investment.

Comment: I can understand what you are saying but surely, if you are looking for investment you are not going to look so narrowly, just people with permanent resident …

RC: No. No. That’s not what I am saying.

RE: They are not the investors.

RC: They are not the investors. That’s not the investors.

Comment: Surely, you want to be absolutely clear, whether it’s status holders like they do now in the fishing industry.

Comment: There are all sorts of ways of doing things.

RC: There are all sorts of ways of doing things. That’s right.

JC: This is not a direct answer to Lisa but just so that everyone’s very clear what we are talking about, You don’t even have to be resident in the Islands to apply for a permanent residence permit. Or, if you are within the Islands, you can apply after three years residence. So, I think we should be very clear about that when looking at this issue. Anyone who has been here seven years can apply for status. It’s not automatic. Under the old constitution, you had to be here for five years and you, automatically, if you were a British subject, got on to the Electoral Roll with Falklands status. Now, it’s seven years. So, I think we should be very clear what the issue is here. Are you going to issue these rights to someone who theoretically could apply from outside for a permanent residence permit and (inaudible).

RC: I think that’s – I can see what you are saying, Jan, that is – what we are suggesting – what is being suggested is that just because they have applied from outside and got a permanent residents permit doesn’t give them the right to hold property. It has the right to apply for property. If Executive Council doesn’t think the person has a lot to contribute, there’s no reason why they should get a property right. But if it is somebody who has a lot to contribute but hasn’t actually been here for the required amount of time to become a status holder..

Q5-P1: They’d get a status holder’s part, wouldn’t they?

RE: That’s the whole point.

RC: That’s the case. That’s it. Yes.

RE: They would then hold and retain the right.

Q6-P1: Are Councillors going to decide this or officials?

MS: It’s a Council decision. You should be aware, I think, one of the issues that’s been raised in the paper is an attempt, I think, to push the decision in a particular direction by using the anti-discrimination clause in the Constitution. I personally find that wholly objectionable and will be saying so in whatever forum I am present.

And, we have, in fact, over the years, four shades of green from this subject. When we went for oil licensing, anybody was permitted to apply for a hydrocarbons licence. In terms of land ownership, people who hold permanent residence permits could hold land but they can hold land if they get a licence from Executive Council.

So, in other matters, we have the right, it seems, to discriminate in favour of status holders when it comes to employment – Government employment, that is – and we do. We discriminate in favour of status holders in respect of the Holiday credit scheme because only people on the electoral register can qualify for that, so I don’t go with the argument that there is a discrimination issue.

So, it’s a straight political issue, it’s a straight resource ownership issue, I think, between status holders i. e., effectively Falkland Islanders, and those who are not. And, you have the option, if you are going for non-status holders, to say that permanent residence permit holders or anybody that’s here or anybody from outside. That’s the range of options. What the paper has argued is that the permanent residence permit holders should be permitted.

I, for one, don’t go with that but that’s a view and we will have a discussion in Executive Council and again afterwards about that.

I’d like to here what everybody else has to think because this is an important issue.

SL: Lewis, you asked what individual Councillors thought. I think the point you made in the e-mail that he sent in with the question was that permanent residents permit holders shouldn’t enjoy exactly the same rights as status holders is actually correct and not just in relation to this but everything.

I don’t think the permanent residence permit is designed to give people full status and it shouldn’t be used for major things like that. I think the way I’d like to see it go is that such rights go to status holders in the first instance and what’s left over can go to permanent residence permit holders, rather than shut off permanent residence permit holders completely.

I’d also like to see something built into it that just because someone is a status holder they can’t acquire those rights and just sit on them and do nothing with them. There must be some kind of development built into dolling out anything like that regardless of who does it. If somebody is just getting them and sitting on them, they should be taken away again. That’s my position on it, anyway.

Comment: (Practically inaudible.) I’d just like to say, there isn’t necessarily the Falkland Islands residents field and capital investment. Falkland Status holders have earned those rights and there is option to attract some investments in a resource here that is personally attractive internationally. And, raising capital isn’t that simple. And you have outsiders with the same rights as Falkland Islanders, is not necessarily acceptable. To have leverage as Falkland Islanders you have to (give them property rights).

RC: I think that’s absolutely right. Stephen put his finger on the bit that I’m concerned about. I’m not sure how many Falkland Islanders will want to take up property rights in the marine farming property rights. And, why I say that we shouldn’t just blank off permanent residents permit holders. You may find that there aren’t sufficient Falkland Islanders who have the ability to attract the capital. I mean, there are people who are in the business, who actually know how to do it. If this someone is a permanent residence permit holder, who applies to Executive Council for property rights which haven’t been taken up, and Executive Council agree for it to happen, I can’t see that that’s an issue.

MS: I think one of the complicating factors is that the paper we have before us is trying to deal with both property rights and fishing and in marine farming. The two industries are in very different stages of development. The very reason that we are talking about property rights in fishing is because Falkland Islands companies need more clout in terms of developing the industry for the greater economic benefit for the Falkland Islands. And we got to that position after about 15 years. Bare that in mind when you are thinking what you are going to do with marine farming. In respect of hydrocarbons development, it was considered at the time that Falkland Islanders have such limited access to capital that they have a hope in hell of putting up the sort of money that would be required for exploring and drilling for oil. It may have been a reasonable decision at the time. Whether that would still be a reasonable thing to do in 20 or 30 years, when there is a developing or semi-mature oil regime, I don’t know. But we just need to bare in mind these things move. And, whether you want the same regime for fishing as you do for an industry which doesn’t yet exist, I am far from convinced.

Q7-P1: I’m going to Lloyds TSB tomorrow with a business plan. As a Falkland Islander I can go and raise capital on the basis of the business plan, or what have you. What’s the problem in reserving that right to people with only residential status?

RC: I’m just concerned it’s a numbers game. The marine farming and the actual possibilities of marine farming are very great.

Comment: The outsiders will be banging on our doors.

JB: They have done that since 1833.

Q8-P1: Where-abouts is all of this going to be taking place. This might seem to be a silly question but not knowing.

RC: There is no place identified yet.

Comment: If it’s 50 acres on the seashore, I wouldn’t want to have that on my doorstep.

MS: Regrettably, that’s not your choice.

Comment: In effect, what you are trying to do is, effectively, if people want those rights, they are going to get them.

RC: There are a huge set of environmental issues and planning issues that go into it.

MS: If you owned the land, you would own the beach but only to the high water mark. From the high water mark outwards, it belongs to the Crown. The Crown is entitled to lease that and other parties to provide rights to exploit it. There has been some discussion about whether land owners should have first refusal to develop a piece of seabed adjacent to their land. It’s another relevant issue.

RC: Everybody should have an opportunity.

SL: There is a side issue, of course, and if somebody wants to develop a particular farm is that if the sea floor is near to the land, they are probably going to want to put facilities on the land so you may well have to come to some kind of agreement with the landowner anyway, which will give the landowner an element of control. They have to be on reasonably good terms with people who own land in that vicinity. It would be inconvenient if they are not.

Q8-P1: is it the same thing for on –land mineral rights?

MS: The mineral developments onshore are undertaken by what, at the time, was an outside business. I think it’s changed its structure over time but it was an outside business because they were interested. But they don’t have property rights as such. They have a right to explore. They don’t even have a right to exploit at this stage. So, again, it’s another different shade of green.

SL: it is vaguely similar to the offshore exploration because of the licensing structure. You have one set of licensing regulations to explore and see if you can find anything. If you find something and want to do anything with it, then you’ve got a whole new field of licensing.

MS: In the offshore licenses, there was a right to go right through to exploitation if you wanted to under the original licence.

(100X Transcription Service)