Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20-39)
WEDNESDAY 5 FEBRUARY 2003
MR ELLIOT
MORLEY, MP, MR
STEPHEN WENTWORTH
AND MR
PETER BOYLING
Mr Marshall
20. In response to Bill Tynan's question, you
mentioned the problem of enforcement of the arena. You seemed
to give credibility to the British industry's plea that other
Member States do not enforce agreement as strenuously as perhaps
they ought to. Do you accept that criticism of other Member States?
If you do, what advice would you give to them to ensure that enforcement
is stronger than it has been hitherto?
(Mr Morley) There are enforcement issues in every
Member State, including our own.
21. How do we improve ours as well?
(Mr Morley) I think our enforcement has improved over
the years. The introduction of designated ports, for example,
the introduction of satellites—and that is an EU measure—has
made a big difference. A range of other measures . . . We are
currently in the process of putting new measures in relation to
bills of sale and enforcement onshore, which will be a very effective
measure. On the issue of enforcement, it would be really very
misleading to say that everything is perfect in the UK and everything
is terrible in every other Member State. That would be a gross
simplification of the issue. We have had some major problems with
enforcement in the UK, some really bad problems of enforcement.
I am very glad to say that things are much improved, but it is
worth bearing in mind, Chairman, that the UK Government was actually
taken to infraction for 11 years of poor quota management and
enforcement up to 1996.
22. I know you cannot say this yourself, but
the question of enforcement means that the reverse of that, of
course, is that the fishing industry is cheating.
(Mr Morley) All I can say, Chairman, is that such
things are not unknown in any fishing industry on that, and there
is a need to ensure that we have proper enforcement and it must
be properly applied across the whole of the EU. That is why I
am very pleased, as I say, that one of the measures we agreed
was a policy to strengthen that across the EU and to ensure that
there is more consistency of standards. I very much welcome that.
Mr Bacon
23. Minister, what percentage of EU waters is
comprised by those which the UK contributed when we joined the
EU in 1973?
(Mr Morley) Stephen will comment on that.
(Mr Wentworth) When we joined at the time you are
referring to, of course, our coastal limits were up to 12 miles,
as I recall, and it was only subsequently that the Community decided
to extend further so that the 200-mile limit was something that
was established after we joined the Community. The exact history
of the stages of it is actually quite complicated, so I would
prefer not to try to recall it all.
24. What percentage of the waters taking the
UK's 200 mile limit are contributed by the UK to the total European
pond?
(Mr Morley) We could give you the exact figure. We
do not have exact figures just to hand.[2]
25. In the Defra report, it says, "The
UK 200-mile limit comprises of up to 80% of the total European
pond." Is that an accurate figure?
(Mr Morley) It will be an accurate figure but it is
worth bearing in mind the point that Stephen has just made, that
when we joined the EU our national limit was 12 miles. The 200-mile
limit came in while we were members of the EU, as part of the
Economic Zone Agreement, and we were already in the Common Fisheries
Policy when that came in. I think that in some ways these figures
are a bit irrelevant.
26. Is it lawful under the United Nations Convention
on law of the sea to take back national control of those waters
within our 200-mile limit?
(Mr Morley) If you are talking about pulling out of
the Common Fisheries Policy—
27. No, I am asking you if it is lawful.
(Mr Morley) It is lawful for . . . Let me put it this
way: we are in the Common Fisheries Policy as a result of treaties—
28. Minister, with respect I am asking you is
it lawful or is it not lawful?
(Mr Morley) I am coming to that.
29. Is it lawful?
(Mr Morley) Let me just explain this point, Chairman,
and we will come to this point. We are signatures to the treaty
in relation to the European Union. If, of course, we were not
members of that treaty, and if, of course, we were not members
of the European Union, of course it would be lawful under international
law in terms of the 200-mile limit which is recognised under international
law. But if you are saying the answer is to withdraw from the
Common Fisheries Policy, then you would have to tear up treaties
which have been signed by this country—and signed by Conservative
governments, I might point out—and the result of that would
be withdrawal from the EU. If that is the policy that you want
to advocate, then of course in a democratic society anyone is
free to advocate that policy, but that is the result.
30. Could you comment on the sentence in the
recent Defra report which says, "It is lawful to take back
national control over the 200-mile immediate line limit which
is acknowledged as being under British and not EU control"—"under
British and not EU control"—
(Mr Morley) Yes.
31.—"by the United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Sea." I am just trying to establish if
that sentence in the Defra report is correct.
(Mr Morley) That sentence is absolutely correct, yes.
32. It is correct?
(Mr Morley) Yes.
Mr Davis
33. Could I just go back to enforcement. You
said that there were some very bad problems, and you implied that
there still are, although it has been improved.
(Mr Morley) Yes.
34. In your opinion, what is your worst outstanding
problem in enforcement?
(Mr Morley) That is a very difficult one to say, Chairman.
I should say that I do genuinely believe things have improved
over the years. I think we can be very confident in relation to
the enforcement measures that we have put in place, but I cannot
say to this Committee that there are no breaches of the rules
under any circumstances in any part of the UK. I think the biggest
worry to myself is the risk of over-quota landings, whether it
is Nephrops or whether it is white fish because that not only
damages the stock, it also distorts the scientific figures, when
you are not getting accurate figures in relation to the declarations.
It also damages our credibility as a country when we are arguing
for alternative approaches, for example, which are based on technical
measures, technical gear: if we establish a reputation as a fishing
country that breaks the rules, then it makes it very difficult
in relation to arguing for alternatives.
35. What do you do about that worst problem?
(Mr Morley) As I say, we have measures in place—satellites,
designated ports, our sea fish inspectors at ports—and there
are new measures coming in in relation to checks on bills of sale,
which I believe are very effective and will stand up to scrutiny
against any Member State in the European Union. In fact, we do
have inspectors from other EU countries who come to our country
to look at the kind of measures we have in place and to work with
us, and, indeed, we send our inspectors to other EU countries
to look at their measures. You may also be interested to know
that as part of the accession arrangements we are working with
some of the accession countries, in terms of advising them on
the kind of enforcement and control measures which are in place.
Which country is it?
(Mr Wentworth) We have had some relation with Poland
and Latvia on this.
(Mr Morley) With Poland and Latvia.
Jim Dobbin
36. Minister, you have possibly covered some
of this in your previous responses, but you may want to expand
on it. What is your view of the relative merits of catch limits
and effort limitation?
(Mr Morley) All fisheries management systems have
advantages and disadvantages. There is no perfect system, otherwise
we would have applied it long ago basically. The quota system
obviously has advantages in relation to controlling the catch
and ascertaining what is the sustainable level; it has disadvantages,
in that once the quota is exhausted there are the discards that
go with that. There is often difficulty in terms of matching up
the quota in terms of mixed fisheries. In terms of effort control,
that has the advantage of being fairly straightforward in terms
of management and enforcement. It has the disadvantage, in that
it takes away flexibility in the way that fishermen operate. So
it is really a problem, in that there is no one system of fisheries
management that is perfect and does not have some disadvantages.
Mr Tynan
37. You gave the example of Canada and the problem
that disregarding the scientists' point of view created there.
There seems to be a difference between the scientists' and the
fishermen's point of view. Obviously it would be much easier in
any negotiations if there were common accord there. How do you
see that difference being reduced? Is there a role for the Regional
Advisory Council on that issue?
(Mr Morley) Yes, I think this is potentially a very
important function of the new Regional Advisory Councils, actually
to engage the fishermen more in relation to the scientific assessments,
the stock assessments, and the fisheries management, and to have
some input from the fishing industry in a genuine way, not just
simply to have it as a talking shop but actually to have it in
terms of formulating policies which will go straight to the Council
of Ministers. That is the way that I want to see the councils
operating. In fact, I want to see these councils have their maximum
amount of power in decision making that we can give them. I think
it is inevitable, Chairman, that it will be a step-by-step process
in terms of confidence building, and you will have to start off
and build up in relation to the influence that they have, but
I certainly think it is a very welcome step forward. But there
is a problem of a gulf between the opinion of the fishing industry
and the views of scientists. There is nothing new in this—it
is not confined to the UK either, but I do think it is a problem.
We have already been trying to take steps to deal with this, for
example, by inviting representatives of fishermen's organisations
to sail on our research ships. That was quite successful: they
found it a very useful exercise and our scientists found it very
useful to have working fishermen on board, talking about their
skills and giving their advice in relation to the way that they
operate themselves. But we need to do more on this. I believe
that there is a real need to bring scientists and fishermen together.
It is certainly a priority that I have as Fisheries Minister.
Within England and Wales we are already taking steps to do that
and I know my colleagues in the Scottish Executive are also looking
at ways of doing it in Scotland as well, because it is a problem
throughout the United Kingdom. We want to use the knowledge and
the skills of fishermen more. We want perhaps to engage them in
such things as scientific cruises and data collection, for example,
and we need to build up trust and confidence between the two sides,
which, at the moment, is not good, Chairman.
38. Has there been any suggestion from the fishermen
that the scientists who have given evidence are not acting in
the best interests of the fishing stock? Would there be a role
for further scientists to be involved in proving the case one
way or another?
(Mr Morley) There is no kind of third group of scientists
on this. Our scientists—and we have very good quality science
in this country, it is something that we can be proud of—our
country's scientists, as in all fishing countries, are part of
ICES, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea.
The stock assessment is done by a combination of the input from
the various countries who are party to ICES. In fact, ICES, the
UK, and as a matter of fact Scottish scientists were one of the
prime motivators of setting up ICES. ICES basically engages just
about all the fisheries experts that we have in the North Atlantic.
Its data collection goes back a very long time. While, of course,
by its very nature fisheries science is never going to be exact,
you only have to look at such things as trends. If I could go
back to cod as an example, if you look at the figures on the population
of cod, if you draw a line on those trends, you get a line that
just plummets. You do not have to be a scientist to see trends
like that. I think it is important that there is confidence in
the way that the science is collected, the way it is applied,
and of course it is difficult when it impacts on fishermen and
is affecting their livelihoods. It is their living and their livelihood,
so you can understand their concern and indeed their interest
in this, and sometimes you can understand why they are very reluctant
to take that advice. That is not a situation that is unique to
the United Kingdom.
Mr Marshall
39. May I probe a little more around the scientists.
You referred to "our scientists" and presumably they
are the Defra ones who are advising you. Clearly there are scientists
advising the Commission as well.
(Mr Morley) Yes.
2 See Note by Witness: Ev. 12. Back
|
