Examination of Witness (Questions 162
- 179)
THURSDAY 31 OCTOBER 2002
MR ELLIOT
MORLEY MP
Chairman
162. Minister, good afternoon. Thank you very
much for coming. The difficulty in trying to get satisfactory
times and dates over what has been a short period, because obviously
we want to conclude the report well in time to make it a contribution
to these important discussions, has been acute. Can I start by
referring to the recent ICES report published just about a week
ago? What is your assessment of the state of fish stocks in the
EU at the present time?
(Mr Morley) It is no surprise to either
myself as Minister or indeed the fishing industry that the ICES
advice is so severe. We know that cod stocks have been in trouble
for some time, which is why we have been introducing cod recovery
programmes, particularly in the Irish Sea and also latterly in
the North Sea. There is no doubt that science does reflect the
problem that a number of key stocks of interest both to the UK
and indeed a number of other Member States are in severe difficulty
and below their safe biological spawning mass. We cannot ignore
that science and that means that we do have to address the situation
with a range of measures. It may well be the case, and I know
that you may have heard this in the fishing industry, that some
of those measures that we have been putting in place since 2000
may not have fully been taken into account in relation to the
impact that they will have on reducing effort, not least the decommissioning
round last year which has removed about 10 per cent of the UK
white fish fleet. We do need to analyse and interpret this science
very carefully in terms of understanding exactly what the implications
are. We also need to sit down with the industry and look at a
range of measures in terms of dealing with it. Although there
is some work to be done on the interpretation of this, I do not
think that we can ignore the scientific advice or the fact that
stocks are in some difficulty and we must take some notice of
that.
163. Part of the report refers to the urgency
of the situation and refers to the danger of imminent collapse.
Do you share that concern?
(Mr Morley) I think that with cod there is severe
danger, particularly with North Sea cod. The figures on the Irish
Sea show a very modest upturn, and I should stress modest,
but at least the figures are going the right way on the Irish
Sea, but the stock for the Irish Sea, North Sea and west coast
of Scotland are severely below what you would regard as a safe
spawning mass, so there has to be some measured action on this.
Mr Mitchell
164. Where does that point you though, because
the fishermen's organisations are arguing, as you have said, for
waiting to see the effects of the measures like increasing mesh
sizes and a reduction in the Danish fleet and in the Dutch and
the British fleets before imposing a ban. Does the evidence in
your mind point to a ban on cod?
(Mr Morley) I think that the idea of closing down
the whole North Sea to fishing fleets is not realistic. In fact,
on some fisheries which have been identified as being a problem,
such as nephrops, it is not justified either. I understand the
fishermen's views on trying to assess the impact of the measures
that we have been taking. I should stress, Chairman, that we have
not been sitting around doing nothing for the last few years.
We have recognised these problems and we have been introducing
a range of measures, including bigger mesh sizes and decommissioning,
although of course they are phased in and of course in that sense
it does take a bit of time for those measures to have an effect.
Where I would disagree with the fishing industry is that I would
be a bit anxious about waiting a number of years to try and evaluate
the effect when stocks are in such a dire situation. I really
think that there is more that we could do in a range of measures
and I think we are duty bound to act upon that now even though
I do not dispute with the fishing industry that there may be a
cumulative beneficial effect in relation to what we have already
done.
165. You are equating a ban on cod with closing
down the North Sea?
(Mr Morley) Yes. That is the clear interpretation
of the ICES advice which is zero quota for cod but also in relation
to by-catch, so in a mixed fishery like the North Sea the logical
interpretation is that where we have a by-catch haddock and whiting
fishery then the strict interpretation will be to close it down
completely. I do not think that is realistic but I do think that
we have to acknowledge the seriousness of the science. I know
that the science is frequently disputed. I do not think that is
a responsible position to take. I think we have to recognise that
although fishery science by definition is never going to be exact,
you can see the trends very clearly and I do not dispute the trends.
166. If you are going to look to other measures
and that is an argument for giving the regional advisory councils
more power, in other words, they can introduce specific measures
targeted to the needs of that area and the fish stocks in that
area, the nature of the mixed fisheries in that area, perhaps
closing down class one and perhaps even more increasing mesh sizes,
is it not an argument for giving them power to exercise more control
over fishing in the area they cover?
(Mr Morley) Yes, I would agree with that. The regional
advisory councils will fail if they are simply talking shops.
They must have real influence in relation to fisheries management
decisions and that is the position that we take from the UK and
it is the position that I take as a Minister. We have to accept
that the ultimate responsibility will always lie with the Council
of Ministers because there has to be clear accountability through
the EU Council and through the Member States, but we need to ensure
that the regional advisory councils have direct input in relation
to the Council and they have direct input in relation to the decision
making process in terms of management decisions which are taken
within their regions. In this case we are talking about the North
Sea. I certainly see a strong and effective role for the regional
advisory councils and I think it is the most effective way of
dealing with management issues and of course we are talking here
about the North Sea cod, Irish Sea cod, and there is also hake
in relation to the Western Approaches, so many of these problems
are regional in nature and there is a limited number of fishery
stakeholders who are involved in those fisheries, so I think it
is logical that we come together on a regional basis and try and
find approaches which will of course apply to all the countries
who are involved in the fishery because it has got to be all countries
involved in a particular fishery, not just one.
167. What about Spanish effort in the North
Sea in that case because it is going to be allowed in for non-precious
stocks? There must therefore be by-catches. Does that mean that
they will need to be represented on the regional advisory councils
and that would mean a greater influence on them?
(Mr Morley) That of course depends on whether they
have an interest in the North Sea and, as you quite rightly say,
while technically the terms of the accession agreement mean that
Spain will be allowed to fish in the North Sea from 1 January,
in reality just about everything in the North Sea is on quota
and therefore if you do not have a quota to fish in the North
Sea then there is no economic inducement to do so and I think
that will apply in relation to Spain. In fact, we have discussed
issues of effort management in the North Sea and the last thing
we need from any Member State is increased effort, whoever they
are. It is not a discriminatory issue. Perhaps ways of dealing
with that might be what little is left which is non-quota perhaps
ought to be put on quota and distributed on the basis of the track
record in the normal way.
168. I admire your trust, Mr Morley. I do not
share it. Let me move on to the Common Fisheries Policy because
as I read it pretty well the unanimous verdict of the evidence
given to us is that the Common Fisheries Policy has failed. I
will just quote the Joint Nature Conservation Committee which
said that it is plain that EU fisheries management has failed
systematically and it is therefore hardly likely that reinforcing
the present system will work. I find it surprising in that situation
that DEFRA—I suppose it has to say something nice about
the system it is lumbered with—urges us not to forget the
"positive aspects" of the CFP, and claims that it has
provided a welcome degree of stability to the fisheries sector,
or stability in decline. Let us take the Joint Nature Conservation
Committee's verdict that it is failing and therefore it is hardly
any use reinforcing it.
(Mr Morley) I am not going to defend the Common Fisheries
Policy in relation to its recognised weaknesses which we recognise
from DEFRA. The Common Fisheries Policy has inherent weaknesses,
it is inflexible, it is bureaucratic, it is too slow to response,
it is not involved in engaging the fishing industry in a way that
we think it should, and all those aspects need to be changed,
but it would be wrong to say that all the problems of the fishing
industry are a result of the Common Fisheries Policy.
169. I do not think anybody is saying that.
(Mr Morley) Oh, I think some people are. Some people
are saying that the root of all the problems is as a result of
the Common Fisheries Policy and that is not the case. The results
of a lot of the problem have been over-fishing which in some cases
involved mis-reporting, illegal landings and not applying enforcement.
This is not unique to any one Member State, I have to say, and
it is also the case that in relation to management of fish stocks
there has to be international co-operation, and there have been
successes in relation to recovery of herring, for example, which
is recovering in the North Sea. Amongst all the bad figures there
are some welcome figures as well and North Sea herring is one.
There is recovery of the management of the pelagic stocks, which
were in generally good condition and good state, and that has
been brought about by co-operation within the framework of the
CFP. You do need a framework in relation to European fisheries
management, and indeed a framework to negotiate things like the
EU Norway Agreement and also third country agreements. What we
need to do is recognise where the CFP has failed, and it has,
and try and address that and reform it.
170. Where is that?
(Mr Morley) Mainly in its inflexibility. It is a very
monolithic kind of structure and when you want to take conservation
measures or introduce technical measures that is a regional argument
in one part of our own waters. If we use the North Sea as an example
it can take a very long period of negotiation and argument before
you get that in. We have to move fast. We very much welcome the
fact that within the CFP proposals from the Commission there is
provision for much faster emergency measures to be taken in relation
to their fisheries management and also more Member State involvement
up to 12 miles in relation to taking decisions on conservation
management. That applies to all. That is a very welcome step as
well. There is some welcome recognition within the proposals for
change which recognise the weaknesses and the failings in the
CFP. But sometimes you get people who complain about quota management,
saying that quota management is a failure. Whether we are in the
CFP or not we will always probably have quota management or, if
we did not have quota management, the only real alternative to
that would be some kind of days at sea regime. There is no real
alternative to take pressure off fish stocks and to ensure that
there is some proper management because otherwise there would
be a big free-for-all and the stocks would be devastated.
171. That is a straw man you are setting up
there. If we had control of our own quotas we could manage them
for our purposes. That is the political dole out of a country
that is the straw man of the CFP.
(Mr Morley) But we have had a political dole out amongst
our fishing fleets, so in that sense you would not get away from
the issue that quota is not just a management tool; it is also
a tool for distributing the fishing opportunities within our own
fleet.
Diana Organ
172. Can we go back a little bit because it
seems to me that when you started you almost had a very fixed
view that the science is right, the science is telling us that
there is depletion of the fish stocks in the North Sea, therefore
everything else will follow, and yet you did touch on the fact
that you thought it was not an exact science and it is difficult
and you and I might argue that it is the science, but we have
heard that it is totally inaccurate to the extent that it is almost
laughable. We have had evidence given to us in previous sessions
that there is a 40 per cent margin of error on this science and
no scientist in this country would accept that that is acceptable
as a margin of error and that there are variations from year to
year even in the southern part of the North Sea. It seems to me
that you have implacably set yourself with the advice you have
got that this is the state of the science, but the science is
inaccurate, you are going to ignore that, and then the policy
will follow from there. Do you not see that the whole thing is
building up as a house of cards because the science is so poor?
(Mr Morley) I am not sure the science is so poor.
I have not seen that figure of 40 per cent inaccuracy. I accept,
as I have just said, that of course by its very nature it is going
to be inexact, but I need a reference point in relation to decision-making,
and the reference point that I have is my contact with the fishing
industry. I do not ignore their views and their experience because
it does count in the decision making process. I have to have some
reference point in relation to the stock figures and the stock
trends. You only have to look at the year on year spawning biomass
of North Sea cod to see that it is plummeting like a stone. You
can argue about exactly where on the graph that figure should
be but there is no argument that it has declined at a dramatic
level; there is no argument at all about that. It would be irresponsible
of me to ignore the scientific advice that I am getting. I know
that there are those in the industry who do refute the scientific
arguments and, as I say, I do not ignore the industry point of
view and in fact I have taken steps in recent years to try and
involve the industry in a much closer way with the scientific
assessment process both in terms of engaging the industry with
scientists, meeting with scientists to talk about their methods
and their procedures. We have had representatives from the NFFO
on our research ships which I thought was mutually beneficial
for both our scientists and indeed our fishermen, and I am trying
to encourage a much closer working relationship between the industry
and the scientific advisers because there are some misunderstandings
on both sides. I think it is important that we try to address
those but to try and say we can ignore the scientific advice because
it is rubbish I do not accept.
173. But on the other hand if we are taking
that view as a result because you are taking the scientific advice
and therefore the policy will follow, a tighter quota on cod,
more restriction of fishing effort, etc, but there is no evidence,
is there, and look at what happened on the Grand Banks, that all
of these measures do anything to bring the cod stocks back?
(Mr Morley) The worry about the Grand Banks is that
there are a number of unknowns about the Grand Banks. One of the
theories about the Grand Banks is that the cod breeding biomass
fell below a critical level that has not allowed it to recover.
I do not intend to let that happen to the North Sea; I just do
not intend that to be the case. Therefore we have to be wary,
and in fact the Grand Banks should be a lesson to us, not an excuse
for ignoring the science. It is true that there may be some other
factors such as the warming sea temperatures. It is a scientific
fact that cod is at its most productive at the lowest cycle of
water temperatures and so if water temperatures are rising it
is probably not helpful in relation to cod breeding. We have to
accept that ICES themselves in their assessments have made it
very clear that their view is that over-fishing is a principal
reason for the decline. Therefore we do have to address the issue
of fishing effort.
174. We talked earlier about the failure of
the CFP and you are probably aware that the House of Lords Select
Committee on the European Union wrote that "the manifest
failure of the CFP during its first two decades has been in large
measure due to lack of political will . . .".
(Mr Morley) Yes, I think there is some truth in that.
In fact, we are seeing it now. I am appalled at some of the statements
I have seen from some Euro MPs and from the Scottish National
Party who seem to be ignoring the science and simply saying that
there must be no cuts to the fishing industry and they present
this as standing up for the industry. I do not believe seeing
fish stocks wiped out is standing up for the industry. There has
been a tendency to do this in the past by other Member States
where fishery ministers have believed that their job is to come
back from the annual Council by negotiating the maximum amount
of fish quota for their industry even if that quota does not exist
and it is simply a paper quota and it is way above the scientific
advice. Even countries like Norway and Iceland, which are sometimes
held up as paragons of virtue in relation to fisheries management,
have taken a disgraceful—I make it very plain to you, Chairman,—and
unsustainable attitude on some deep water stocks such as blue
whiting where they have ignored completely the scientific advice
and have been taking an unsustainable catch from that stock. There
are still examples of an attitude which ignores the science, ignores
the long term view, ignores sustainability and instead thinks
that it is a populist position to say, "We are going to ignore
the advice and we are going to stand up for our industry by saying
no reduction in quota, no following the advice from the scientists".
As I say, there are examples of that from the SNP and some MPs
at the moment in our own country and I think it is to b e condemned.
175. What about more at home lack of political
will to deliver support to the fishing industry in the monies
that are available within Europe for modernisation, for upgrading
of health and safety? There has been criticism from fishing organisations
and associations that the British fishing fleet have always been
put on the back foot because they have not been able to get the
monies that have been helping other fishing fleets to get the
modernisation. Is that a lack of political will from the British
Government?
(Mr Morley) It is not the case. We will provide I
think a very large sum of money over the next few years in relation
to the FIFG programme which we allocate to our own industry for
a range of support measures.[1]
There is also support in relation to restructuring through the
regional development agencies. It is true that we do not give
money for building and modernisation. I do not think there is
any justification for doing so. In this country we went through
a period in the eighties of giving money for building and modernisation,
new vessels and extending existing vessels. That had the effect
of increasing effort and so after giving out large sums of money
in the 1980s, the 1990s were spent in giving large sums of public
money in decommissioning those vessels to reduce them. I think
with all the problems that we had which we have just been discussing
in relation to the problem of fish stocks in the European Union
generally it is completely ludicrous to be using public funds
to build and modernise fishing vessels because the end result
is always a more efficient and more powerful fishing vessel. We
certainly are not going to go down that road in the UK because
I think it is entirely unjustified. I know that was the view of
your own Committee in the last report you did on the CFP and the
view of the House of Lords Select Committee as well. It is one
of the issues of course that we are arguing in the CFP reform.
But in terms of other financial measures, our fishing industry
gets very similar support through the FIFG programme as other
countries.
Mr Mitchell
176. The reality is that because of the Fontainebleau
agreement and the nature of the Treasury contribution to any European
funding, which is high, the British industry has suffered. It
has got less money from Europe or from its own government and
mainly from both than competing industries have.
(Mr Morley) The Fontainebleau agreement does work
against the interests of our country in relation to the small
print of the rebate negotiation that was carried out by Mrs Thatcher.
In a sense we do not have the same access to European funds as
other countries do. However, I think you will find that analysis
of the amount of money which has gone into the UK fishery industry
in the last decade compares very favourably with the average that
has gone into other Member States' fishing industries.
177. Would it not be sensible, if we are hit
to a degree, whatever figure we can argue about, by the Fontainebleau
agreement and if our Treasury is meaner towards fishing than comparable
trades are,—
(Mr Morley) Not necessarily.
178.—because fishing is a smaller interest
in the British economy and the overall picture than it is in Denmark
and in Spain and in other countries? If it is the case that you
do not want to provide money for investment in new vessels would
it not be better to argue on the European scale for no investment
in new vessels for any country because there has been a huge modernisation
of the Spanish fleet, so it is causing a lot not only of increased
competition but certainly ill will in this industry that British
vessels cannot get it but Spain is modernising at our expense
a fleet that is too big already?
(Mr Morley) No, I agree absolutely with you that I
think the position should be no funds for building and modernisation
in the whole of the European Union. That is a recommendation within
the revised CFP where Franz Fischler is actually arguing that
the money which is going currently for building and modernisation
should be switched into restructuring to help the industry in
areas where there is decline; I think that is the right thing
to do. One should always stress of course that the Spanish fleet
has contracted dramatically, as indeed has been the case in every
Member State. I do not think it has expanded, it is true they
have a lot of modernisation money but I do not think they have
expanded.
179. They had subsidy support in the 1990s when
they were pushed out of Morocco.
(Mr Morley) It is true, although, of course, that
is a comparable situation from when we were pushed out of Iceland
and there was a great deal of money and support for our fleets,
quite rightly so at the time. Indeed that Spanish fleet is not
going back into Morocco and it is not going anywhere else for
that matter as well and it will be decommissioning.
1 Note by Witness: The actual sum made available
by the four fisheries Departments in the UK for the period 2001-02-2003-04
was £85 million. Back
|
