The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Chairman:
Mr.
Mike
Weir
Barlow,
Ms Celia
(Hove)
(Lab)
Bradshaw,
Mr. Ben
(Minister for Local Environment, Marine and
Animal
Welfare)
Carmichael,
Mr. Alistair
(Orkney and Shetland)
(LD)
Dobbin,
Jim
(Heywood and Middleton)
(Lab/Co-op)
George,
Andrew
(St. Ives)
(LD)
Goodwill,
Mr. Robert
(Scarborough and Whitby)
(Con)
Kirkbride,
Miss Julie
(Bromsgrove)
(Con)
MacNeil,
Mr. Angus
(Na h-Eileanan an Iar)
(SNP)
Moon,
Mrs. Madeleine
(Bridgend)
(Lab)
Singh,
Mr. Marsha
(Bradford, West)
(Lab)
Vaz,
Keith
(Leicester, East)
(Lab)
Watts,
Mr. Dave
(Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's
Treasury)
Wiggin,
Bill
(Leominster)
(Con)
Alan
Sandall, Emma Webbon, Committee
Clerks
attended the
Committee
The following
also attended, pursuant to Standing Order No.
119(5):
Reid,
Mr. Alan
(Argyll and Bute)
(LD)
European
Standing
Committee
Tuesday 28
November
2006
[Mr.
Mike Weir in the
Chair]
Consultation on Fisheries Management Proposals
[Relevant
Document: EU Document No.
9898/06.]
4.30
pm
The
Minister for Local Environment, Marine and Animal Welfare
(Mr. Ben Bradshaw): I am grateful to the
European Scrutiny Committee for recommending this debate. Sustainable
fisheries and the marine environment are extremely important matters on
which there have been significant recent developments, and it is good
that hon. Members have the opportunity to discuss them.
On a number
of occasions since I have been Fisheries Minister I have attended
debates in the House at which hon. Members from all parties have
rightly criticised the inadequate time available for reasoned
consideration of and debate on a variety of European Commission
proposals, in particular those linked to the annual negotiations that
culminate in the December EU Fisheries Council, which is less than one
month away. I am delighted to say that, following concerted pressure
from the UK in particular, the Commission has produced an initial
project planthe first document under considerationthat
suggests a range of proposed improvements, and that it is now starting
to effect the necessary changes.
I am also
pleased to say that as a further step the International Council for the
Exploration of the Sea and the Commission have recently reached
agreement on significant changes to the provision of scientific advice.
From 2008, the advice that has previously surfaced in October will be
produced in June and that, combined with the earlier submission of the
Commissions strategy paper in April, should provide for the
more measured debate that is desired. In particular, it will allow
adequate time to consult the regional advisory councils and other
interested parties before the Commission produces its formal proposals
later in the year.
Separately, the Commission has
produced a paper that details how it proposes to implement the
commitments to achieve the more sustainable future fishing levels
throughout the EU that were entered into under the world summit on
sustainable development, or WSSDthe so-called maximum
sustainable yield target. That is the third document before the
Committee for consideration. The commitments require the EU to maintain
stocks or to restore them to levels that can produce the maximum
sustainable yield. For depleted stocks, the aim is to achieve that goal
urgently and, where possible, no later than 2015.
At last
weeks European Fisheries Council meeting, I heard a
presentation by the Commission on the progress made on its action plan
for the simplification and improvement of the common fisheries policy.
It included
the developments made on front-loading, but there were also encouraging
indications that more detailed proposals on other technical issues,
such as technical conservation, would be coming forward shortly. That
is encouraging, but I assure the Committee that we will continue to
press the Commission to introduce detailed proposals on other aspects
highlighted in the action plan, such as the review of the control
regulation, which should all serve to provide much needed improvements
to the operation and effectiveness of the
CFP.
The
Chairman: We have until half-past five for questions to
the Minister. I remind hon. Members that their questions should be
brief and asked one at a time, in light of the ample opportunity for
everyone to ask several questions.
Bill
Wiggin (Leominster) (Con): May I say how nice it is to
serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Weir? I congratulate the
Minister of State on his recent promotion. Given that the proposals
will require earlier estimates of the science on which decisions are
made, what measures are being taken to improve the accuracy of
estimating stocks, biomass and
recruitment?
Mr.
Bradshaw: We constantly try to improve and refine the
scientific exploration that we and ICES undertake. That does not mean
to say that with cod, for example, we will not still look for
scientific evidence in the autumn as well as the spring, but having the
information by the summer should give us an early indication of the
state of the latest year class and will help us to plan. It may well be
that by the autumn the estimates will have changed and we will need to
revisit the positions that we held before, but as the hon. Gentleman
will know, marine science is not an exact science, but it is constantly
being improved and refined.
Mr.
Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD): I, too,
welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Weir, and place on record the
congratulations that I offered privately to the Minister earlier on his
recent promotion to Minister of State, which is, I think, of great
benefit to the fishing industry.
I bring the Ministers
attention to paragraph 3 on page 7 of the bundle. It refers to the
importance of
agreements with third countries
like Norway and Iceland
and goes on to say that
the Commission will be looking
to begin these discussions earlier in future, if at all
possible.
I place on
record my agreement with that assessment and ask what progress has been
made in that
regard.
Mr.
Bradshaw: I personally have regular discussions, both
bilaterally with the Commission and at the Council of Ministers. The
EU-Norway talks have been discussed in the past three Fisheries
Councils. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, those talks are crucial
and increasingly important for the overall package that our fishing
industry will end up with at the end of the year.
I
think I am right in saying that 50 per cent. of all the
valuecertainly for the Scottish fleetis predetermined
by the outcome of the EU-Norway talks, which set the level of catches
for the stocks that we share with the
Norwegians. The UK and other EU member states have certainly left the
Commission in no doubt about the importance of those talks and of the
EU striking a fair but hard bargain with the Norwegians in the
interests of EU fleets, including the
UKs.
Keith
Vaz (Leicester, East) (Lab): What impact does the Minister
think the recent EU enlargement has had on his discussions? Obviously,
countries such as the Baltic states will be very engaged on fisheries
management policy. Has enlargement helped in any way, or are there now
more obstacles as a result of the A8
accession?
Mr.
Bradshaw: That question is interesting and important.
Although enlargement was a strategy supported on both sides of the
House and has served the wider UK strategic interest, on some
issuesthis is oneit has made our lives more difficult
in some ways.
To
generalise for a moment, most of the accession countries, at this stage
at least, seem more interested in short-term economic benefits for
their fishing industries and port areas, rather than long-term
sustainability. Those who follow the issue closely will know that, in
the past year or two, the UK has been fighting hard to prevent the
important reforms to the common fisheries policy that we achieved in
2002 from being reversed by a qualified majority of mainly southern
European states and the accession countries.
However, I have two bits of
good news from the recent Fisheries Council for my right hon. Friend.
First, we have finally agreed on a cod recovery plan for the Baltic.
That had been outstanding for some time, and the accession states
played an important role in getting that agreed. Secondly, one of the
most contentious issues at last weeks Fisheries Council was an
agreement to reduce substantially the TACs and quotas for the slow
maturing deep-sea species, many of which are at critically low levels.
The UK led a conservationist grouping to prevent the French from
significantly watering down the Commissions proposals, and the
support of Estonia was critical to our blocking minority. I sense that
things are beginning to move in the right direction and we shall
certainly do what we can to ensure that they continue to do
so.
Mr.
Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con): Page 6 of
the explanatory memorandum states that the advice is often
based on regular time series
research, which has to be conducted at particular times of the
year.
Would moving the
sampling period from October to June enable data to be strictly
comparable? Is the Minister satisfied that we will not get a false
impression, certainly in the first year? Stocks tend to move around and
we might be misled about where the fish are and how many there
are.
Mr.
Bradshaw: We are not talking about changing the sampling,
which will carry on as before. It will be increased to give us the
advice earlier, but we will still sample throughout the year. We will
certainly maintain the current pattern of sampling so that the
comparisons to which the hon. Gentleman refers can be
made.
Mr.
Angus MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP): Have any
studies been made of warming in the central North sea and its effects
on cod and cod migration to the northern North
sea?
Mr.
Bradshaw: A number of studies have been undertaken on the
impact of climate change on the marine environmentindeed, we
are publishing a major study on it tomorrow. The hon. Gentleman is
right to highlight the issue as a possible factor in the low level of
cod stocks in the North sea. I would, however, caution him that the
scientific consensus suggests that, although there has been a general
migration further north of all speciesnot just
codbecause of warming, the North sea is still a perfectly
viable and conducive environment for cod. There is no reason why cod
stocks in the North sea should not recover, if they are allowed to do
so.
Andrew
George (St. Ives) (LD): I welcome the tenor of the
Ministers statement. He will no doubt acknowledge that the
recognition of regional advisory councils in the European
Commissions statement is welcome. How optimistic is he that
future negotiation of management procedures could lead to regional
advisory councils becoming regional management councils? There are a
lot of references in the document to consultation, but not many that
acknowledge that, for seasonally closed areas and other geographically
specific measures, it would be appropriate to delegate responsibility
to those
RACs.
The
Chairman: Order. Before the Minister answers, the scope of
the debate is the timely provision of scientific advice, but some of
the questions are going a bit wide of
that.
Mr.
Bradshaw: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We have long
held out the prospect of regional advisory councils playing an
increasingly important role. At the same time, we must learn to walk
before we can run. We still do not have the full network of regional
advisory councils in the European Union area, but the UK would
certainly encourage the Commission to revisit the role of regional
advisory councils as part of its 2011 review of the common fisheries
policy and to see whether they could take on a more managerial role. As
a Minister, I am all for not having to micro-manage the fishing
industry and for allowing not only the fishermen but all parties who
have an interest in the marine environment to take on more
responsibility for it. Taking the decisions out of politicians
hands would be
marvellous.
Bill
Wiggin: The Commissions Scientific, Technical and
Economic Committee for Fisheries recently
said:
STECF
has stated previously, that the uncertainty associated with forward
catch predictions are likely to be
underestimates.
Does
the Minister know by how much those predictions are likely to be
underestimated?
Mr.
Bradshaw: No, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an exact
figure. I would imagine that the answer would depend on which stock
that committee was referring to. It would not surprise anybody if,
historically at least, predictions of fishing levels had been
underestimates, because it is a natural desire of fishermen to maximise
their catch and their income.
Mr.
Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD): I welcome the
Ministers statement. The documents point out that in the past
there have been large variations in total allowable catches from year
to year. For example, in the 17 years to 2005, the North sea haddock
TAC was altered on average by 32 per cent. a year. Such wild variations
clearly cause long-term problems for the industry. Has any thought been
given to more long-term planning, so that there would not be such
massive variations in TACs from year to
year?