Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1-19)
WEDNESDAY 5 FEBRUARY 2003
MR ELLIOT
MORLEY, MP, MR
STEPHEN WENTWORTH
AND MR
PETER BOYLING
Chairman
1. Minister, welcome to the European Scrutiny
Committee. I understand this is your first visit to us.
(Mr Morley) It is, Chairman.
2. We will try our best to be as kind and accommodating,
Minister, as we always seek to be. Would you mind introducing
your colleagues.
(Mr Morley) Not at all. On my right is Stephen Wentworth
who is our Director of Fisheries within Defra and on my left is
Peter Boyling who is Head of Division in Fisheries and deals with
a lot of the technical aspects in relation to the implementation
of EU regulations.
3. Minister, which of the decisions taken on
reform of the Common Fisheries Policy were the most important
for the UK and are there any areas about which we should still
be concerned?
(Mr Morley) I think there are a lot of areas which
still need to be resolved. There were two areas of importance
to us. One of course, was the reform of the CFP. That is very
important in terms of the long-term framework for fisheries and
the interests of our country. In terms of reform of the CFP, we
did achieve most of our principle objectives and the outcome was
what we wanted to see in relation to that. The other important
area, which is more short term but very important, was the cod
recovery programme in the North Sea/Irish Sea, west of Scotland.
A range of other recovery programmes is still to come, notably
the hake recovery programme, which is not of paramount importance
to us in terms of cod, but we still have an interest in that.
There are obviously a lot of details to be put in place. We very
much welcome the fact that we were successful in getting agreement
on the Regional Advisory Councils. In terms of the long-term management
of fisheries, I think this was a very important development and
it is one which will develop over time. It is important that we
get them in place. It is also important that the fishing industry
have a voice in them in terms of regional management and it is
important that over time we strengthen their influence as much
as we can in relation to fisheries management. There are also
issues like discards, and discard policy. There is a lot in that
which we very much welcome, but that needs to be resolved in terms
of detail. We very much welcome the move towards multi-annual
quota, but again, there is an awful lot of detail that needs to
be resolved on that, and there are still arguments of course about
the detailed effort control which was put in place—we have
it in place in the North Sea. The Commission do see effort control
being applied in other parts of the Community as well as in relation
to stock recovery. That is just a very brief outline of some of
the key areas.
4. What about the provision allowing Spain access
to the North Sea and the Irish Box. We understand that this does
not give them a quota share for regulated species, but are you
confident that the enforcement mechanisms are adequate to prevent
such abuses?
(Mr Morley) Spain did try to get a quota allocation
in the North Sea. From the UK perspective, we argued very strongly
that that was a breach of relative stability. The principle of
relative stability was agreed, and that is very important in terms
of our own UK interests. The attempt by Spain was unsuccessful.
They do have the right of access. That was written into their
accession treaty, as they have the right of access into western
waters. The reality is that with no quota in the North Sea there
is really no economic reason for them to be there and it is not
likely that we would see Spanish fishing boats, because unless
you have the quota then it is not worthwhile to steam so far for
the very limited range of species which is not quota control.
On the western waters, the Irish Box arrangements have fallen
from 1 January. Again, that flows from the accession agreement.
We have made it very clear that we are not arguing about the details
of the accession agreement and the Spanish rights but there is
a very important principle, conservation management and effort
control management, and we think there is a very strong argument
for putting a successor regime in western waters based on effort
control which could mean limits on the number of vessels—that
is how it is applied at the present time—and, given satellite
control, I think it is something that can be managed and enforced.
The issue of the so called Irish Box is not yet resolved, Chairman.
We did raise this at the last Council and we asked for the Presidency
and Commission to progress this as quickly as possible.
Jim Dobbin
5. I think it is generally accepted that one
of the problems facing the Common Fisheries Policy arises from
the excess capacity of the Community fleet. Are you satisfied
that the measures agreed will properly address this, particularly
as regards aid for vessel construction?
(Mr Morley) We wanted to see aid for vessel construction
ended immediately. There was a group of nations, the so-called
Friends of Fisheries, who wanted it to continue indefinitely and
certainly until the end of the present programming period, which
is 2006 within the FIFG programming period. We did get agreement
in the Council that the aid will end in 2004, and so it will end
next year. I think that was an important step forward. That is
not as quickly as we would have liked but the fact that it does
end means that vessel construction has gone out of public subsidy
and, given the problems of overcapacity and effort, I thought
that was a very important decision to make. It was one of the
most difficult decisions. It was a decision which went to the
bitter end of the Council because of course that group of countries
were determined not to concede that, but in the end they had to
concede it.
Angus Robertson
6. Minister, the Secretary of State for Scotland
yesterday told Members in the House that there was £5 million
worth of European aid going to help fishing communities in the
fishing industry. Can you confirm to the Committee that that is
not new money but is the existing FIFG allocation? That is the
first question I have. Secondly, could you tell the Committee
whether any European Union contingency funds exist for which the
UK Government has applied? Thirdly, has the Scottish Executive
requested that the UK Government apply for any European Union
funds or have they not asked for the UK Government to apply for
European Union funds?
(Mr Morley) If I may deal with the first question.
I think you are saying in relation to FIFG funds which are allocated,
and that is correct. A lot of the money in the aid packages, both
in Scotland and England—and you will appreciate that the
details of the aid package in Scotland are a matter for the Scottish
Executive and not for me—is additional to the existing funds
within FIFG. I am not aware of any European contingency fund that
can deal with a situation of this kind. I do not have any details
myself of any requests from the Scottish Executive. I do not know
whether you have, Stephen? No.
7. Minister, if I may follow that up and raise
with you the example of Morocco, which has successfully managed
to secure
197 million in terms of help and assistance after
the Moroccan grounds were closed. Obviously the similarities are
quite close. Political negotiations resulted in the fleet losing
huge fishing rights and massive restructuring of the fleet was
required in Spain. Spain managed to secure
197 million and you have just confirmed to the Committee
that the UK Government is not aware of any funds that exist.
(Mr Morley) No.
8. Why is it OK for Spain and not for the UK?
(Mr Morley) Because that money that Spain used was
a reallocation within its FIFG programme and not new money from
the European Union.[1]
Mr Connarty
9. I am obviously very disappointed in the fact
that even for one more year we will be giving public money to
allow people to build boats that are not in fact required. It
does seem a bit worrying. Turning to CFP reform, one of the things
that was the policy of the Labour Party out of government, and
I thought was policy when in government, was to argue for the
end of industrial fishing. Industrial fishing has been an anathema
to everyone in the fishing industry since it began, yet it would
appear from your response to the Chairman on what happened at
the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Council of 27-29 November
that no mention was made at all of any discussion about industrial
fishing. Can you give us any insight into what happened? Did we
actually just not do anything about it or did we argue a case
and lose it? Who voted against us? Because it seems to me that
as long as there is scooping up of the bottom of the food chain
from the sea bed, the potential for fish recovery in the North
Sea is destroyed.
(Mr Morley) For many years, Chairman, the only person
that has raised industrial fishing in the Fisheries Council is
myself. For many years. It was the UK who pressed for a total
allowable catch to be set on sand eels, which was achieved. It
was set at a level which we thought was far too high and it was
the UK who pressed for that TAC to be reduced. It has been reduced.
We do not think it has been reduced enough. It was the UK that
pressed for the closed area off WeeBankie which we achieved. It
was a three-year agreement and it was part of a scientific assessment
measuring the effect of that on sea birds. We also pressed in
the December Council for that to be extended because it came to
the end of its three year period and we were successful in getting
that extended. We also have been pressing for a proper scientific
evaluation of the impact of industrial fishing, because there
is a major dispute, of course, between those fishermen who are
involved in that fishery, who claim that the impact on stocks
and by-catch is limited, and of course the feeling, particularly
from our own fishermen, that using small-mesh nets like that must
have an effect on the marine ecology in terms of by-catch, in
terms of white fish, in terms of removing food source—although
the fact is there is no shortage of sand eels in the North Sea,
so it is not a food source issue. But I think myself that there
is an issue in relation to white fish by-catch. We do lack, Chairman,
really definitive information on this and one of the things that
we pressed for and on which we got agreement is a proper study
which the Commission is seeking through ICES of the effect of
industrial fishing, both in terms of by-catch and the marine ecology.
That was agreed. Also relevant to the problem of by-catches is
the action plan on discards now before the Council. So we are
taking this forward. It is not happening as fast as I would like
but, as you appreciate, if you want to bring about reductions
in that fishery then you really need the case to do so. We have
been working very hard to get that scientific case, to make sure
that we bring about some changes.
10. It might have been useful in the reply if
your officials put that in, because in fact this reply today shows
you in a much better light. It did seem in the reply from your
Department that you had not mentioned industrial fishing, although
it is clearly a point of contention on the floor of the House.
(Mr Morley) Chairman, the December Council was five
days of discussions and negotiations. It had a huge agenda. Within
those is a whole range of concerns, many of which we have been
pressing for very strongly. The action plan on discards was one.
That is also, of course, something which will now have to be developed.
The strategy also includes such things as real time closures—looking
at the possibility of that; temporary closed areas; looking at
the whole area of discards, the reasons for that and how we can
stop it. I thought it was a major step forward. I know that in
debate members have been raising over many years the problem of
discards. I think the fact that we have before us a plan to tackle
this is a welcome step forward and industrial fishing is part
of that.
Angus Robertson
11. Given the approach which the Council has
taken, when do you think we can expect to see a measurable improvement
in the position, especially as regards to cod and hake?
(Mr Morley) I think it is very difficult to put exact
figures on it. We have to remember that the current spawning bio-mass
estimates of cod in the North Sea is around about 36,000-37,000
tonnes. The safe sustainable population which scientists advise
us we should be looking for and which we would like to achieve
is 150,000 tonnes. You can see how far away we are from what is
considered a sustainable spawning bio-mass. We really need to
get that spawning bio-mass up. That was of course the whole focus
of the cod recovery programme. You may remember, Chairman, the
initial proposal was for complete closure of white fishing in
the North Sea. That was amended to an 80% reduction in effort,
which is frankly not much different from a complete closure. With
the advice of our own scientists, we tried to agree a recovery
programme that gave the maximum opportunity we could give to our
white fish fleets, that respected the very, very serious scientific
advice that we had to follow. That is what I believe was achieved
in the end, in terms of the balance that was struck. Clearly it
is going to impact on the white fish fleet, we know that very
well, but the situation is that, if we do not take action of this
kind, cod in particular is very much right on the edge of collapse.
I am sometimes concerned, Chairman, in the debates we have about
the effects, that the issue of conservation does not seem to feature
very much at all and, while no-one is disputing the effect of
these cuts on the white fish fleet, the effect of a complete stock
collapse—which may never come back, as it has not in Canada—is
an even greater threat that the fleet faces.
12. You will of course be aware of the substantial
conservation measures that the Scottish fleet has taken over recent
years. I would like to ask you about what you and your department
are doing with regard to haddock and whiting quotas. Is there
not a case for an increased quota for both of those species, bearing
in mind the evidence your department has and the possibility of
being able to decouple cod from haddock and whiting?
(Mr Morley) We are looking at the possibility of trying
to decouple haddock and whiting. As you will appreciate, it is
impossible to do it completely because it is a mixed fishery.
You are going to get catches of those species whenever you are
fishing in the North Sea, and that is a problem when the cod stock,
in particular, is in such a dire state. But the figures for haddock
itself are not great. There was a very good year class in 1999,
but the spawning years, the recruitment since 1999, have been
very low—in fact, one year it was the lowest on record.
So we need to try and look ahead as well in terms of making sure
that we do not have problems with haddock to those we have with
cod. I do believe that there is some scope for looking at the
haddock and the whiting quotas. We are doing that at the present
time. We are talking to our scientists and the Commission. For
example, Chairman, from studies that were done on the closed area
two years ago in the North Sea, we have an idea where there are
cod concentrations, so we can perhaps be looking at areas where
there are low cod concentrations in relation to how we operate
the fishery. There has also been some work done on a separator
trawl, which is designed to allow cod to escape from the bottom
of the trawl and has a 110 mesh at the top for haddock and whiting.
My understanding is that the initial results of the work done
on that by the Sea Fish Industry Authority were very encouraging
and I want to take that work forward, to see whether that is an
example of how we could look at improving the haddock and the
whiting quota while trying to protect cod. We do have to be cautious
because haddock and whiting themselves need to be managed properly,
but I think there may be some room to look at that in terms of
giving the white fish fleet a bit more of an opportunity on those
two species.
13. In the meantime, we are seeing the roll-out
of de-commissioning over the weeks and months ahead. Obviously
both Defra and the Scottish Executive do see a case for compensating
the industry and those people who are going to be made redundant.
One concern that I have and which I am sure other members of the
Committee would have who represent fishing constituencies, is
that decommissioning often means the skippers of boats seeing
compensation for them and getting out of the industry, and the
crewmen, who are mostly self-employed, walking away with nothing.
Since we are looking at a redundancy plan rather than a recovery
package, what thoughts do you have on ways in which ordinary crewmen
will not walk away empty-handed if they are forced to lose their
jobs?
(Mr Morley) It is a difficult one because there is
not provision within the decommissioning package for that kind
of redundancy element. The decommissioning package is about removing
effort from the fleet, particularly when you have a problem where
there is excess effort, and particularly when you have a recovery
plan of this type which will make it very hard for fishermen and
it does give those fishermen who want to leave the industry the
opportunity to do so. Decommissioning schemes of the past do have
an element of recycling money back into the industry as well,
as a matter of fact. But, in terms of the crew, the way we are
approaching that and the impact in England is through our Regional
Development Agencies, as part of our regional restructuring, and
the kind of mechanisms we have in place for any kind of structural
change and any kind of industry, whether it is steel, chemicals,
textiles, in terms of redundancies or retraining. That is how
we are approaching it. I understand the Executive are approaching
it in a very similar way, through their Enterprise Boards. As
you appreciate, that is a decision for the Executive.
Mr David
14. I wonder if I could take the Minister back
to the issue about stocks in more general terms. It could be said
that this year's agreement on total allowable catches represents
the classic compromise between the immediate economic concerns
of the industry and the long-term needs of the stocks, to be retained
and preserved. Certainly it has been said by some commentators
that this year's agreement sees a weakening of the approach favoured
by the scientists. If that is true, do you have a concern that
that will in fact lead to a long-term erosion of the stocks in
general terms and is that more specific to some areas than others?
(Mr Morley) I think you have quite rightly identified
what was one of the most difficult decisions, certainly from the
UK perspective, within the Council. It was agonising choices between,
on the one hand, the very clear scientific advice that the fastest
way to get stock recovery is to go for complete closure. I do
not think any one would dispute that that is the fastest way to
get a stock recovery but it would have the effect of destroying
the whole infra-structure of our white fish fishing fleets and
I could not agree to that. On the other hand, I could not ignore
the science either. Indeed, in the Council there were some North
Sea Member States who were supporting complete closure. Germany
and Sweden supported complete closure of the North Sea and all
other Member States accepted that there were going to have to
be severe cuts in quota and effort control management because
of the seriousness of the situation. As I mentioned, Chairman,
we have our own scientists who were on our delegation within the
UK, very good scientists, and we discussed the trends and predictions
and later recovery in terms of what we would have to do that would
be credible and responsible in relation to the recovery programmes,
and, as I say, tried to balance that by giving our fishing fleets
the maximum opportunity. In terms of what was finally agreed,
for example, within the days that were available in the effort
control measure, 54% of our white fish fleet actually operate
within those days that were agreed. I know there are a very large
number who do not, but a majority within the actual time that
was put in place. We tried to take what was a responsible position.
There was an element of balance. The result of that, of course,
is that you get criticised by the conservationists on the one
side, who think you have gone too far, and you get criticised
by the industry on the other, who think you have not gone far
enough in relation to resisting the cut backs. It is like most
things, when you are criticised by both sides, you have probably
got the balance about right, generally speaking. I am sometimes
concerned, Chairman, that this issue of the state of the stocks
seems to be lost. To argue that we should not have had the cuts
that were agreed, I think is irresponsible, because to go further
in terms of arguing against the cuts in quota would have been
against the scientific advice, would have been against the long-term
interests of the fishing industry, and it would be a re-run of
what happened in Canada. I did go to Canada last year and talked
to the Canadian fishing industry and Canadian fishermen, and they
said to me, "Don't make the mistake that we did." In
fact, just before the stocks collapsed in Canada, there were similar
arguments running. There were similar groups within the Canadian
fishing industry saying that the scientists were all wrong and
that there were lots of fish in the sea, and there were similar
political interests, particularly in those communities, as you
can understand, who were arguing that the Canadian government
should not make the cuts that were being recommended by the scientists.
They did not and the stocks collapsed. That is the position that
I am determined will not happen in the North Sea.
Mr Steen
15. Mr Chairman, before I ask my question, could
I just pay tribute to the Minister for the work he has done, both
as Minister, which is second to none, in the fishing industry
and also as Shadow Minister. He used to visit my constituency,
Brixham, which is the second largest fishing port in England and
Wales, and his visits went down very well with the fishermen.
I would like to pay tribute to that. The question I have is this:
In the eighties, 20 years ago, I remember having identical conversations
with the minister for fish about the scientists. They used to
bring all the scientists into the meeting and the scientists used
to say, "The stock are going to collapse, we have to cut
the numbers." Twenty years later, we seem to be still here
with the same argument. The fish are still there, the fishermen
are still there, and the number of fishing boats in my constituency,
Brixham, as you know, is over 100. They are still over 100 and
they are all making a living. I am a bit puzzled about these scientists:
are they men in white coats or do they actually exist?
(Mr Morley) But they were not wrong 20 years ago,
because there are a lot less fish and there are a lot less fishermen
now than there were 20 years ago. Stocks have declined rapidly
over that period. All stocks have declined. All fishing fleets
have declined. Brixham seems to be doing very well to maintain
its fleet. That has not been the case in most fishing ports in
the UK or, indeed, in most European countries. The level of stocks
for just about everything is much lower now than it was in the
past—with some exceptions. I am very glad to say that it
is better for some of the larger stocks like herring and mackerel.
Herring is probably in better shape now than it was 20 years ago,
I would think. Do you want to make a comment on that, Stephen?
(Mr Wentworth) Certainly herring has been through
very difficult periods and the Council has taken tough action,
very quickly actually—during the nineties they did it—and
secured a rapid recovery in North Sea herring. It has demonstrated
that stocks can recover if effective action is taken promptly.
(Mr Morley) I take some encouragement from the fact
that the herring stock did come back, although it did take quite
a long time, and of course there were consequences, particularly
in relation to the market for herring. In the UK, for example,
there is a very good export market for it. So it does demonstrate
that you can have a successful recovery plan but it also demonstrates
that the scientific advice is generally pretty accurate.
Mr Tynan
16. Minister, would you agree that every year
we seem to face the same problems and every year the situation
seems to be worse.
(Mr Morley) Yes.
17. How far do you think the Common Fisheries
Policy can be blamed for that?
(Mr Morley) The Common Fisheries Policy must take
some blame for it; the fishing industry itself must take some
blame for it as well. The fact is that the Common Fisheries Policy
has been very monolithic, it has been very inflexible, it has
been very slow to react, and also in the past there has been a
lack of political will in relation to taking difficult decisions
for quite understandable reasons. That, incidentally, was identified,
Chairman, by the House of Lords select committee, which produced
a very good report on the fishing industry, and our own Defra
select committee, which also produced a very good report on the
fishing industry. They made it very clear that robust action and
tough decisions were necessary. The House of Lords identified
a failure of political will over very many years in terms of dealing
with the issue of stocks and the House of Commons Defra committee
made it absolutely clear that tough decisions in relation to stocks
needed to be taken. I think one of the reasons why we have had
these problems over the years is that, first of all, the fishing
industry get more effective and better year on year: vessels improve,
technologies improve, gear improves and the catching power of
the fleet, just in terms of technology, improves all the time
and that is a problem. The other problem is that in relation to
the decline of stocks no fisheries minister wants to go back to
their country and say, "We've cut your quota." No minister
wants to do that. It is not exactly popular with the fishing industry,
as we well know, but perhaps over a very long period of time that
reluctance to face up to unpopular and difficult decisions has
led us to the situation where we are now. My own view, Chairman,
is that some of the decisions that we have taken recently should
have been taken 10 years ago really.
18. Are you confident that the negotiations
and decisions taken this year will not lead to the same situation
occurring next year?
(Mr Morley) I think it is very difficult to make those
kind of predictions, because you have problems of fishing effort
and fishing capacity and you also have the natural cycles of fish
stocks which go up and down naturally. Therefore, there is an
awful lot of variables. I am, myself, optimistic that we will
see increase in the recovery of stocks, in particular cod, in
relation to the measures that we have put in place. It does mean,
of course, that the measures have to work. It does mean that there
has to be proper enforcement and management across all European
fishing fleets because there have been problems in the past, sometimes
on a very large scale, of misreporting and illegal landing and
that has also contributed to the kind of problems that we have
had. I think we have come a long way, particularly in our own
country, in terms of enforcement and management and also a more
responsible attitude towards conservation, but that has to apply
across the whole of the EU. Another welcome outcome, Chairman,
from the December Council was again measures to strengthen enforcement
control across the whole of the EU and greater co-operation between
Member States—for example, in terms of fishing vessels of
one Member State operating in another and the kind of cooperation
and information. So I do believe that we can bring about a stock
recovery. It is very difficult to predict the speed and the progress
of that but we have the measures in place which, if properly applied,
I think will work.
Mr Steen
19. I think the Minister will know, Chairman,
that particularly in Devon there is a belief amongst a lot of
fishermen that the 12-mile limit is too limited and that the UK
would be very much more successful if it had more control over
its fisheries' resources and the EU is really a menace in that
respect and gets in the way. It is particularly true in the west
country that the feeling that Europe has damaged the prospects
of the fishing industry is quite widespread. I wonder what the
Ministers view is about whether the position would be better if
the UK had greater control, just as it has over the crab and lobster
industry, and whether it should have it over the rest of the industry.
(Mr Morley) In an ideal world, of course it would
be easier for myself as the UK Minister to have absolute control
over our own territorial waters. Of course it would. However,
having said that, there are again a number of unknowns on that.
Given the nature of our waters, given the nature of the North
Sea, where you have a boundary line straight down the middle of
it, and the English Channel, where you have a boundary line which
is really very close, if you do not get a common approach in terms
of management and enforcement, no matter how good your management
is on your side of your national boundary, fish of course do not
stop at that line. They cross those boundaries. If you have poor
management and poor enforcement on the other side, then you're
going to suffer the consequences of that. It is also the fact
that many of our fishermen fish outside of our boundaries, in
other countries' waters, and it is very important to them. Even
if we had absolute control, you would probably have to negotiate
agreements with all other European countries and Norway, as we
do, which would probably end up with something not very dissimilar
to the Common Fisheries Policy that we have now. I think that
is worth bearing in mind. I do agree that the 12-mile limits are
very important in relation to conservation management and particularly
our inshore fleet and our shellfish fleet. I was very glad to
say that one of our objectives was to get the six and 12-mile
limits renewed, which we have done, and in fact another aspect
of the outcome is that there is more flexibility to be given to
Member States in relation to management up to 12 miles, and I
would very much welcome that as well. That is something of course
that we will be talking to our sea fish committees about and also
in relation to our own strategies. So I think the 12-mile limit
is very important but I think sometimes people have an over-optimistic
view of what it would be like if we did have exclusive control.
Some people seem to think that there would not be quota control—and
there would. Other countries who are not in the Common Fisheries
Policy, like Iceland and Norway, have quota management and quota
control. They have some of the same problems that we face as well
and they are often pointed to as examples of good management,
and they have certain advantages, in that they do not have such
complicated mixed fisheries as we have in the North Sea. Of course,
the more of a mixed fishery you have, the more complicated the
management is, but both those countries themselves have run into
difficulties at certain times in relation to stock management.
And of course we have the Canadian example. That was a single
Member State management and its fishery completely collapsed.
I think the idea that if we were not in the Common Fisheries Policy
everything would be wonderful and rosy is rather a simplification
of the issue, despite the fact of course, that there are undoubted
advantages to it.
1 Note by Witness: The EU finance for the restructuring
of the Spanish fleet, which had fished off Morocco was from the
redirection of existing fisheries funds. Part was from
the Spanish FIFG Programme and part was from provision for the
anticipated replacement of the EU: Morocco Fisheries Agreement. Back
|
