Examination of Witnesses (Questions 160-179)
MR BEN
BRADSHAW, MR
RODNEY ANDERSON
AND MR
CHRIS RYDER
8 DECEMBER 2004
Q160 Chairman: If we had
ITQs then under the Factortame case surely licences for
British quotas could be purchased by overseas fishing interests.
This is what the south-west producers were putting to us as a
possible outcome which would lead to a reduction in the British
fleet and purchases by foreign fleets.
Mr Bradshaw: That
is theoretically possible, but again we would want to have a look
at those concerns and address them as far as we could. As
you will be aware, Chairman, when this Government came into power
in 1997 we did take measures to prevent the problems that we had
before with Spanish boats taking over UK quotas.
Q161 Chairman: Have you
visited the Faeroes? Their management system has been commended
to us by a few witnesses and by some of the other evidence we
have had. What is your reaction to that?
Mr Bradshaw: Yes,
I have visited the Faeroes and, as I said earlier, I think there
are attractions in both the ITQ system and the effort control
system. The Faeroes in a way is even more less like the UK than
Iceland because it is even more fisheries dependent and its fishery
is not as mixed either as ours or as Iceland's. The difficulty
with an effort control system in a mixed fishery off the North
Sea is that if we were to introduce an effort control system into
the North Sea now along the lines of the Faeroes system, which
I understand is now the official Conservative Party policy, it
would completely devastate our whitefish fleet in the North Sea
because you would be setting your catch limits based on cod which
would have an enormous impact on other valuable and thriving fisheries
like haddock. We would have to think very carefully about that.
The other problem with the effort control system is that what
you do get, and what you have to be very careful to try to avoid,
is capacity creep. If you are saying to fishermen "We are
not setting any quotas, you can go out and fish for X many days"
and you base that number of days on your assessment of what the
stock levels are for the most depleted stock, the problem, if
it is a mixed fishery, is that you introduce an incentive (and
this has been happening in the Faeroes) for boats to increase
their capacity so that they fish as much as they possibly can
by doing that, or technical creep as well.
Q162 Chairman: Would ITQs
be compatible with diminished quotas?
Mr Bradshaw: Yes,
I do not see why not. That is something the Strategy Unit flagged
up in its report.
Q163 Chairman: What would
be the criteria for selecting the communities that would benefit
from that? I worry about communities who are dependent on fishing
and in the past it has excluded bigger towns like Grimsby. We
are not dependent on fishing, but fishing plays a part. If it
goes just to communities with a small fishing fleet the community
quota system would not work for our concerns.
Mr Ryder: It is
amongst the issues that arise in discussions on ITQs. The Strategy
Unit report contains a certain amount of analysis on the dependence
in various communities on fishing. We certainly have no conclusions
up our sleeves on this at the moment and certainly how to protect
vulnerable communities, which would be the vulnerable communities,
is one of the issues we need to consider in parallel with discussions
on ITQs.
Q164 Chairman: Would it
be handled by the Fish Producers Organisation?
Mr Ryder: This
is one of the suggestions that have been made. We are obviously
engaged in pretty detailed discussions with the stakeholders and
I know that this Sub-Committee has met with some of them. Certainly
handing management over to the producer organisations to protect
vulnerable communities and community quotas is one of the suggestions
that have been made, but all of this is very much under discussion.
Q165 Alan Simpson: I am
pleased that there are on-going detailed discussions with the
producer organisations. One of the things that are quite difficult
for us as a Committee is the almost completely contradictory claims
that are being made. You were quite enthusiastic about the system
in Iceland and yet the Eastern England Fish Producers Organisation
has said to us that the ITQ system there has been disastrous for
fish stocks and disastrous for fishing communities. It is actually
quite difficult to come to a view on the merits of systems if
those who are looking at them are coming to such diametrically
opposed views. Can we have some of the evidence that is being
used on both sides brought more into the public arena so that
people can understand whether there is merit in it or not?
Mr Bradshaw: I
do not see any reason why we should not provide you with any evidence
that we have on the debate. The debate about ITQs is pretty readily
available and it is part of your job to flesh this out, Chairman.
Q166 Alan Simpson: How
do you respond to the claims from the Eastern England Fish Producer
Organisation that the example that is cited of Iceland as a system
that makes the case for the introduction of ITQs is completely
wrong?
Mr Bradshaw: What
I would say is, if they have not done so and if they have the
resources to do so, they should go and have a look at the Icelandic
system and how it has worked. When I was in Iceland I found they
were pretty supportive of their system and when I was the Faeroes
they were pretty supportive of the system they had there. It is
true that in Iceland, as I said earlier, there has been some consolidation
and, of course, consolidation is not always popular with people
who are consolidated. It is always very difficult for visiting
ministers in the space of two days to make a judgment on something.
What I found remarkable was the level of support across the political
spectrum and across the fishing sectors for the Icelandic system.
What struck me particularly after going into a room to meet fishing
industry representatives was being told by them that they had
to cut their levels of catches on cod, which was something that
one was not used to hearing when one spoke to the fishing industry
representatives in this country. One of the strengths of the Icelandic
system it seemed to me was that the ITQ system, to go back to
what we were speaking about a moment or two ago, has not only
given the fishing industry an incentive to manage the stock sustainably,
it has brought huge buy-in from the industry into management.
The Icelandic system is basically managed on the basis of consensus.
I think we are moving in that direction here. I think developments
over the last year have brought a new spirit of consensus and
co-operation. There is unprecedented co-operation in the south-west,
for example, within the South-West Invest in Fish. At last the
industry, the scientists, the Government and environmentalists
are all working together and we have seen the establishment of
the RACs. I think that culture is changing, but we have got a
long way to go. It took Iceland 20 years to get there. I suspect
that one of the reasons that some people in the industry express
their support for a Faeroes-style effort control system is that
historically we have had a high level of unreported catches in
this country, so moving straightaway to an "honest"
ITQ system would result in some pain probably in some parts of
the UK to adjust to that. That is a personal view. I do not know
whether my officials agree with it.
Q167 Chairman: The Faeroes
have defied the Icelandic recommendations several years running
and seen their catches increase.
Mr Bradshaw: Yes,
but I seem to remember there was some scepticism in the Faeroes
about what might have caused that. There is some concern now about
stock levels. In fact, they were facing in current circumstances
quite a dramatic cut.
Q168 David Burnside: The
Minister was referring to Regional Advisory Councils. There are
very mixed views on these councils. Some of the best academics
we have heard describe them as "talking shops". The
Scottish Federation referred to them as "a useful launching
pad for further devolution". Devolution in its current form
comes from the top to the bottom. It must be specified what is
going to be devolved. I am not quite clear. They seem to me in
their present state to be talking shops. What would the Minister
see as the future role of the advisory councils? Could they move
from advisory to regulation? Could they move to ownership? It
seems to me the Scottish Federation was assuming they are going
to have a great deal more to do than just the advisory talking
shop role that is proposed at the minute in the Strategy Report.
Mr Bradshaw: I
think it is a bit unkind to describe them as talking shops. The
North Sea Regional Advisory Council has already produced at least
one paper and it might be working on another to help inform decisions
that are made both nationally and in Brussels. Our hope has always
been—and we expressed it at the time when we secured this
as a major part of the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy—that
we did not want them to remain simply advisory councils forever
and indeed the Strategy Unit report itself points to a future
management role on a regional level and that certainly is something
we would like to see. I think it depends very much on how the
Regional Advisory Councils work, what kind of reputation they
get for themselves, if they show themselves able and willing to
work together, involving all the interests and to make recommendations
which are sensible, based on science and responsible. I detect
a real appetite in the Commission no less for these Regional Advisory
Councils to work.
Q169 David Burnside: Can
the Minister remind the Committee, do they have a statutory observer
role within the Commission? What is their status?
Mr Bradshaw: They
have an advisory role and the Commission has already received
advice from the first one that has been set up.
Q170 David Burnside: The
devolved assemblies in the quota discussions in December go along
and have observer status within the Commission.
Mr Bradshaw: As
far as I understand it, the Commission is not legally obliged
to follow their advice. Perhaps I could make a political point.
As I was just saying, I detect just as much frustration in the
Commission at the system that we have had in the past and an appetite
for a real devolution of management power, but I think we need
to give these Regional Advisory Councils time to work and prove
themselves. It would be surprising to say the least if, having
established these Regional Advisory Councils and if they come
up with reasonable advice, that advice was not to be taken, particularly
at this time when all the Member States have shown their commitment
to them, some of whom were initially rather sceptical.
Q171 Alan Simpson: I want
to just pursue the detection and traceability theme in the new
system. The Scottish Fishermen's Federation have said to us
that no scheme introduced either by the Government or the EU could
be remotely as rigorous and demanding as that required by Marks
& Spencer. Is that a fair claim?
Mr Bradshaw: It
probably is. Unfortunately or fortunately, not all fish in this
country is bought and sold by Marks & Spencer, but traceability
is a very serious issue that we have to get to grips with. In
all successful fisheries systems traceability is paramount.
Q172 Alan Simpson: The
industry has argued to us that in fact there already is a high
degree of traceability and that that is in the catch of the market.
How much of a credibility gap is there between the standards set
by the likes of Marks & Spencer and the norm of the market?
What is the gap?
Mr Bradshaw: I
would not want to put a percentage figure on it. The industry,
if you were to get them to be candid, would also recognise that
there are traceability issues in the UK that there had not been
historically and this is one area that we really do have to get
to grips with if our fisheries policy is to be credible in the
future. As I am sure you are aware, the Government has specific
plans to introduce registration to sell fish and I think it is
widely recognised that proper traceability is essential for any
country that wants to have a sustainable fisheries management
system and we do not have to do that at the moment.
Q173 Alan Simpson: So
you would reject the industry's claims that an additional system
of traceability may well produce penalties but it would not do
anything about the security of fish stocks? In a sense that is
the argument that has been put to us, that it may be a good way
of penalising the industry but it would not necessarily be a good
way in terms of delivering more secure fish stocks.
Mr Bradshaw: I
am always rather reluctant to comment on comments that are relayed
to me second-hand without knowing what the industry really said.
If what you are saying is do I think honesty in the system is
important, yes I do.
Q174 Alan Simpson: Will
there be funding to cover the transition costs?
Mr Anderson: Within
the terms of the grant regime which we operate, which is the FIFG
grant, there are opportunities for funding to assist with marketing
and other activities which relate to traceability. It is a substantial
set of rules and it is one of the areas that we are looking at
with the industry. In principle it is fine, but one has to look
at the fine print. My reading of the Government policy is to be
supportive in that respect.
Mr Bradshaw: Mr
Simpson led his question by citing Marks & Spencer who have
a very good record on traceability, as do the other major retailers.
A point that is often missed here is consumer rights. I believe
very strongly, in light of the reports we saw yesterday, that
consumers will want to know increasingly where their fish came
from, how it was sourced, whether it comes from a sustainable
source, and the consumer increasingly does not want to feel that
he or she is supporting illegal and unsustainable practices.
Q175 David Burnside: Do
we expect fish and chip shops in the future to have symbols of
where the fish comes from?
Mr Bradshaw: Fish
and chip shops will be covered by the traceability scheme in the
end. Our idea is that people should be able to trace where their
fish came from.
Q176 David Burnside: There
is much less branding in fish and chip shops than there is in
supermarkets.
Mr Bradshaw: The
simplest thing to do is for people to ask in the fish and chip
shop where their fish comes from. I always do that and by and
large I am pretty convinced I get an honest reply.
Chairman: I always do.
If it comes from Grimsby I buy it!
David Burnside: I did
not think you paid for your fish and chips!
Q177 Chairman: Let us
just ask about the progressive recovery of management costs from
the industry. This seems to me a way of involving the Strategy
Unit in their own policing system and giving them an incentive.
It seems like a triple-whammy because not only does the fishing
industry get less help from Europe than others and less help from
national governments than others, it is now going to be asked
to pay the costs of its own management. Is this seriously a starter?
NFFO said it is going to be at a disadvantage compared to other
fleets which do not have to pay these charges.
Mr Bradshaw: I
suspect, Chairman, there is a bigger picture here of a philosophical
argument as to how far private sector industry should be responsible
for paying the costs of its own management. The levy that we already
have that goes to sea fish is a kind of charge on the industry
to help manage and promote that industry. We are having exactly
the same discussions at the moment about agriculture, ie how far
should the taxpayer pay all the costs of managing what is in effect
a private sector industry. It is not just the UK that is talking
about this, you will find fewer and fewer countries in the world
prepared to subsidise to the extent that they have been in the
past the management of an industry by the taxpayer, and there
are other benefits to be had. Look at the way that the freshwater
rod licence is supported by angling interests because the money
that is raised is ploughed directly back into managing stocks
of fish in our rivers and lakes and waters and improving them.
I believe exactly the same argument could be made in the seas
where if you had a charging system that the industry saw was being
used to manage the fish stocks in the oceans to their benefit
I think you would find that people would support that. We are
moving away from the kind of command economy regime that we have
had in the fishing industry just as we are and have been on agriculture.
Q178 Chairman: I think
that is a fairly helpful reaction. We have already had indications
that they see an increasing burden of management for which they
do not want to pay because they do not feel it is necessary. Should
the principal not really be charged, to the extent that competitor
fishing fleets charge?
Mr Bradshaw: I
think you will find this debate is going on in other EU countries
as well. I do not think it is unreasonable, if we are talking
about developing a system in which the fishing industry has a
real say in the management of the stocks, to say that in exchange
for new rights come new responsibilities and in the successful
fisheries management systems you see in other countries the management
of the fishing industry is funded by the industry itself, not
by the taxpayer.
Q179 Alan Simpson: Do
they have the same administrative points and penalties system
that you are thinking about?
Mr Bradshaw: Many
do, yes.
| 
