Examination of Witness (Questions 141
- 159)
THURSDAY 31 OCTOBER 2002
MRS SHERYLL
MURRAY
Chairman
141. Thank you very much, Mrs Murray, for coming
and giving evidence to us. This is our third and last session
so that we can ensure that our report ultimately will hopefully
be able to be a contribution to the very important discussions
which are going on in respect of the reform of the Common Fisheries
Policy. I know you have come a long way and we are very grateful.
Perhaps I could start with what is probably the core of the whole
situation. What is your assessment of the current state of the
fish stocks of the fisheries in Europe and is there really in
your view a risk of collapse?
(Mrs Murray) As far as I am concerned
the scientific evidence would appear to be contradicted by the
reports from some of the fishermen on the ground but I do believe
that the whole thing has been mismanaged by the European Commission
for the last 30 years and unless something is done to dramatically
change the management situation of the fish stocks we could be
facing disaster. When I say "dramatic change" I think
perhaps, because they have failed with this collective system,
it is time to hand back the management and the control to the
nation states. That does not mean excluding other Member States'
fishermen from coming into the 200-mile limit of the UK or Spain
or anybody else, but if you had one person with ultimate responsibility
for making the regulations and imposing them on everybody rather
than a collective of 15 horse-trading around a table where you
come to a consensus which does not please anybody at the end of
the day, then that would be the most sensible way forward and
that is not addressed in the Commission's proposals.
142. You remember what it was like in 1992 when
the last reform was undertaken. How much worse do you think it
has got since 1992?
(Mrs Murray) If I could correct you there, Chairman,
it was not a reform of the Common Fisheries Policy in 1992. It
was a mid-term review of the 20-year agreement that was decided
in 1983. They agreed at that time to have a mid-term review of
the situation to see how the situation would be in order to accommodate
equal access for all Member States from 31 December 2002.
143. That was about 10 years ago, so what is
your assessment of what has happened in the last 10 years?
(Mrs Murray) I think what has happened in the last
10 years is that we have just seen the total demise of the British
fishing industry and we have seen other Member States' fleets,
like Spain, with European aid, building very modern vessels while
British fishermen who, let us face it, have contributed most of
the resource to the European pond, have been disadvantaged because
they have had to operate with ageing vessels, they have had no
money for rebuilding, for modernisation. That is not just down
to the present administration, that is down to past administrations
as well, and I think that is probably one of the worst things
that the UK has seen.
144. The Fishermen's Association said on the
face of it that the Commission's objectives appeared sensible.
As they stand at the moment would the Commission's proposals achieve
a recovery of fish stocks in the European fisheries in your view?
(Mrs Murray) Absolutely not, because with enlargement
you are going to get more Member States coming in. You could end
up with about 26 Member States sitting round a table horse-trading
and on the technical measures themselves you would come to no
agreement on any sensible technical conservation measures and
the whole thing would get worse. The only thing that the Commission's
proposals will do is force British fishermen off the waters and
we will end up with having no fleet left whatsoever.
Mr Mitchell
145. The problems are due to the over-fishing
produced by equal access to a common resource, which is the basic
principle of CFP, but do you think the CFP can be reformed in
a way to make it acceptable to this country and to conserve the
stocks? Is it a question of mend it or end it?
(Mrs Murray) I think it is a question of end it. The
reason I say that is that when you have a policy where they allow
the total allowable catch for the food source of species such
as cod to be taken—they have allowed a million tonnes quota,
and the quota is never ever exceeded and it has not been for years—that
food source is being destroyed and that is why the cod is not
growing as much as it used to; that is why the haddock are not
growing. Let us face it: if there were no food in this country
what would we do? We would not stay here and starve. We would
go somewhere else where there was food. I believe that that is
probably a contributory factor to why there is a decline in the
European Union sector of the North Sea. The food source is being
destroyed with their permitting this industrial fishery and the
fish are just going elsewhere for food.
146. Given the fact that we are in this situation,
do you accept that there is a need for a significant reduction
in fishing effort?
(Mrs Murray) I accept that there may be a need for
some sort of conservation measures but I do not think it necessarily
has to be a reduction in fishing effort and until you look at
the effects of the environmental situation, until you look at
other effects and you introduce very sensible technical conservation
measures and then find that there is genuine evidence that over-fishing
is responsible, then I think even fishermen would accept that
they have to cut back.
147. You do not believe the scientists?
(Mrs Murray) I do not mean the scientists, no, because
I believe that there is a definite contradiction between the fishermen
who are reporting on the ground and what the scientists are reporting
from their investigations. If you remember, since 1992 the fishermen
have been calling for sensible conservation measures to be put
in place. The NFFO did a tremendous exercise in 1992 and presented
a very comprehensive document on conservation measures along with
the SFF, and that was completely ignored by the Council of Ministers
because our Minister is one person arguing amongst 15 and until
you remove that situation you are never ever going to get an agreement.
148. What sort of measures would you want to
see?
(Mrs Murray) I would certainly like to see far more
work done on separator trawls. Even in a mixed fishery I am certain
that this can work. If you look at Canada with the situation of
the pollock and the silver hake, the silver hake are a very small
species of fish and the pollock are huge, but the Canadians have
introduced a separator trawl that separates the two. Furthermore,
Cuba has a good market for silver hake and the Canadian Government,
because it has control over its own waters, allowed the Cubans
to come in and pursue that fishery for silver hake but on condition
that they used these trawls so they do not damage the pollock
stocks and these species can grow. I think that it is about time
the EU either looked at that or, if they do not, the only way
is for the British fisheries Minister to grasp the nettle and
say that we are going to take back national control on a conservation
measures basis and we are going to introduce methods of capture
like this so that the fish stocks stand a chance of survival.
149. You would not that accept the regional
advisory councils would give more influence, certainly in our
waters, as a reasonable alternative?
(Mrs Murray) The regional advisory councils may give
a slight advantage but at the end of the day you are still going
to get horse-trading because they still have to involve more than
one Member State. If you look at the North Sea or you look at
the Irish Sea you are going to have three or four different nations
and they have all got different agendas, so the regional advisory
councils without one Member State having the control would not
achieve what I think the Commission would like us to believe they
would achieve.
Diana Organ
150. You spoke very passionately on behalf of
our fishing communities and you said that the industry is facing
disaster, a total demise, and this obviously has an impact on
the earning capacity of the communities that earn their living
from fishing. You said that it is conceivable that fishermen can
be forced into economic ruin with no government financing to assist
them. So what level of assistance do you think is acceptable and
necessary that needs to be done at present for fishing communities?
(Mrs Murray) For a start, if we are going to end up
having to put up with this system, the first thing that I think
is essential is that we are seeing annual multi-species management
plans talked about and if fishermen are going to be tied up then
they certainly need to be compensated for those tie-ups, just
as the industry asked last year for compensation but the money
was not forthcoming. We saw the Spanish situation with the loss
of the Moroccan agreement and we saw European money being pulled
out not only for the six months that the Commission had to do
it but for a lot longer period to compensate these Spanish vessels
for the loss of fishing opportunities in Moroccan waters. I think
we should start to say, "Okay, I know it is going to be hard
on the Treasury but at the end of the day the British Government
must do the same for British fishermen".
Mr Borrow
151. Austin raised the issue of effort reduction
and I think you were unhappy with that concept, but if the Council
decides to introduce effort reduction how do you think it should
be introduced because quite a number of different ideas have been
put forward?
(Mrs Murray) We do not have a choice because the European
Commission have already tabled their method in the Cod and Hake
Recovery Regulation. They are talking about a form of kilowatt
days. In other words it would be a multiple of the length of time
a vessel spends at sea multiplied by the kilowatts in engine power
of that vessel during a certain period of time. I think they are
talking about the average between 1998-2000. It would be the total
of that and then left up to the Member State how they distribute
those kilowatt days. Quite frankly, I believe that it would end
up forcing a tremendous amount of the UK industry out of business
and on to the dole queue and I believe that is the genuine reason
because John Farnell has already told a committee such as this
in Scotland a few weeks ago that the Commission's intention is
virtually to force fishermen out of the industry because they
are not able to maintain economic viability. Decommissioning has
not worked. The most active and efficient fishermen have not accepted
decommissioning because they have not been offered enough money
to leave the industry and so they are going to use this as a tool
to force them away. I personally do not think and my Association
does not think that we are ever going to be able to achieve anything
sensible for the United Kingdom fishermen until we break this
system of haggling amongst 15 Member States unless one person
is in control. It is not saying you do not have to consult with
them but at the end of the day you have got to have one person
who can end up making the decisions or you do not get any decisions,
or not sensible ones.
152. You have made that comment several times
so I think we have got that message loud and clear, but I am really
wondering whether you have any views on a reduction in effort.
If that is the method that is going to be used, and you have said
you are not happy with the quota proposed, part of the argument
that is going on is that if you want to reduce the catch by a
certain percentage you need to reduce the effort by more than
that percentage to make up for the fact that boats get more efficient
as the inefficient boats go out and if people are cutting the
time they are going fishing it is going to be the least productive
times rather than the most productive times.
(Mrs Murray) If you were forced to do that then obviously
there would have to be a sensible decommissioning scheme to remove
capacity. I do not believe that once you remove the amount of
capacity, and there are a lot of fishermen who would leave the
industry if they were able to accept an early retirement scheme
or a sensible realistic decommissioning scheme, there would be
any need for a days at sea scheme if sensible technical measures
involving gear were adopted, but the whole situation is based
on the fact that you are never ever going to get those because
every time something is put forward there are two or three other
Member States that do not agree with it. It is no good telling
anybody in the industry to come up with these wonderful ideas
because when our minister takes them to Brussels he is probably
going to be one voice. Do not forget that we have to get 28 votes
to get a blocking minority or 62 votes to get a qualified majority
on any agreement. At the end of the day it really does not matter
what we decide. The only way in which we are going to be able
to achieve anything for British fishermen, who I believe the UK
Parliament is here to represent, is for all UK parliamentarians
to accept that they are not going to get anywhere in the European
system and to adopt perhaps a Bill that was put before Parliament
a few years ago as a Private Member's Bill called the Fisheries
Limits (Amendment) Act, and grasp the nettle and take back control.
Diana Organ
153. Effectively what you are saying then is
that we come out of the EU on fishing?
(Mrs Murray) No, I am not, because you do not have
to leave the European Union to take back national control over
the Common Fisheries Policy. The British 200-mile limit, as every
other Member State's 200-mile limit, is recognised as belonging
to the Member State, not the European Union, by the United Nations
and the United Nations convention on the law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
agreement of 1983. The European Union is not a country and that
is why it cannot be recognised as having a 200-mile limit. It
is legally possible for British parliamentarians to speak up on
this issue, and I believe it is acceptable; in fact I believe
you have a responsibility to do it on conservation grounds because
at the end of the day in going along with the European Union's
Common Fisheries Policy you are contributing to the demise inf
ish stocks. You are also contributing to the demise of third country
fish stocks. You have only got to look at the situation with Senegal
to see that not only is the European Common Fisheries Policy agreement
with that country destroying their fish stocks but they are also
destroying the artisanal fisherman because Spanish vessels are
going in beyond the limits that they should and the artisanal
fishermen put to sea without lights or anything because they cannot
afford them and I think it is about time our Minister accepted
how many deaths have occurred in Senegalese waters because of
our participation in the Common Fisheries Policy.
Mr Mitchell
154. I just want to point out that that was
a hybrid Bill and a very good Bill it was too. If the regional
advisory councils, which are, let us face it, put forward by the
SFF and the NFFO as a compromise between taking back control of
our own waters and the full rigours of the European policy, were
not advisory councils but had power to enforce conservation measures
and fishing plans agreed by whatever nations are fishing in those
waters, would that be a satisfactory compromise?
(Mrs Murray) If they had absolute control, yes, that
would be satisfactory, or it would not be completely satisfactory
but it would be a move forward. One of the things that I hasten
to add is that you are never ever going to get that because, according
to the Commission's proposals, the regional advisory councils
are only going to be able to make recommendations. The Commission
does not have to take any notice of them when they make their
proposals to the Council of Ministers and, even if they do, the
Council of Ministers again have to adopt that agreement. I am
afraid that the proposals that have been tabled are going to deliver
nothing. We heard talk about the six and 12-mile limits being
made permanent. After the last Council of Ministers meeting even
that has now been watered down to say that it might be another
10-year derogation. The reason for that is that everybody knows
that you cannot have a permanent derogation unless it is an abrogated
derogation or a protocol to the treaty, whichever way you wish
to describe it.
155. The same is true of relative stability,
is it not?
(Mrs Murray) Relative stability is a derogation and
it is not permanent and if you look at what John Farnell told
the Scottish Parliament a few weeks ago, they are now looking
at relative stability being completely re-negotiated every five
years and put into a regulation and probably being shared out
on the basis of fisheries dependent regions rather than historic
rights.
156. If there is a reduction of effort there
has to be, you said, some form of compensation for vessels that
cannot put to see. Presumably those communities will be hit by
this. Who should that be financed by? The British Government or
Europe?
(Mrs Murray) No. I think it should perhaps be financed
by the European Union but if that means that the Treasury has
to make a contribution then so be it because, do not forget, European
Union money in the past has been denied to British fishermen.
That is why we have not been able to get modernisation grants,
because the Treasury would not put up their share.
157. Because of the rebate.
(Mrs Murray) Absolutely.
158. You say that what has been agreed is effectively
going to impose a limitation of days at sea on the British fleet
and you have suggested that that will drive many of them into
bankruptcy because they are fishing near their financial limit
at the moment without that restriction. If we are in that situation,
and I regard it as hypothetical because Elliot Morley was one
of the leaders of the opposition to days at sea, what is going
to be the reaction of the Scottish vessels? Is it going to lead
to more black fish and more cheating? Can it be effectively policed
on a whole series of scattered communities round the coast?
(Mrs Murray) On the days at sea, you mean?
159. Yes.
(Mrs Murray) Yes, of course it will be policed because
at the end of the day they will be tied up in port. I will give
you an example of a situation where this has already happened
in Scotland. One of the most modern vessels from the north of
Scotland has just been sold to Norway because it did target the
North Sea fishery and our Minister encouraged vessels to diversity
into—
| 
