Sub-Committee D, under the chairmanship of the Earl of Selborne, is conducting an inquiry into matters to be considered in the forthcoming review of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), in preparation for the Green Paper which the European Commission expects to issue in February/March 2001.

The Committee does not propose to go over again in detail ground covered by inquiries conducted by the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee in 1995-96 and more recently by the House of Commons Agriculture Committee in 1998-99 [references supplied]. It will, however, seek to identify issues of particular importance outstanding from those committees' reports which need to be addressed in the review of the CFP, and will welcome having its attention drawn to them in the course of evidence to the present inquiry.

Evidence is invited with particular reference to the following questions:

1.	To what extent (and in what ways) is it possible to reform the CFP without undermining its more positive features, i.e. an international legal framework for enforcement, restricted access to the main fisheries, and "relative stability" of national shares of the main fisheries?
2.	How best can the longer-term objectives of economic, social and environmental sustainability, including the precautionary principle, be reflected operationally in the CFP?
3.	Is it possible to reduce the CFP's dependence on total allowable catches (TACs) and quotas as the main instrument of management, especially when adequate stock assessments are lacking?
4.	What is needed to make enforcement systems at Community and Member State level more effective?
5.	Could controls on fishing effort be introduced, whilst retaining relative stability (i.e. a satisfactory way of ensuring fair shares of the resources between countries)?
6.	Is it possible to adopt medium-term management strategies (e.g. Icelandic-style "control rules" where TACs are pre-determined formulaically in relation to stock levels) which might help to achieve sustainable levels of fishing over a transitional period of a few years?
7.	Can the traditional conflicts between fishermen and managers (and their scientific advisers) be reduced by deciding such strategies in appropriate regional management forums?
8.	To what extent do the recent proposals by the UK national fishermen's federations for decentralised zonal management provide a sufficient basis for progress?
9.	What scope is there for helping the fishing industry to accept short-term losses of income in the interests of conservation by providing some form of transitional aid (but not long-term subsidies) within EU rules?
10.	What are the implications of CFP reform for agreements with non-EU third countries?
11.	What new requirements will EU enlargement impose?

5 July 2000