Mr.
Bradshaw: Yes, indeed. We agreed two years ago to a new
system, under which there would be no change of more than 15 per cent.
in either direction, unless there was an unprecedented reason for
introducing one, although we secured a significantly bigger increase in
the nephrops TAC for Scotland last year, which was not sniffed at. In
general, the big swings in the past made it difficult for the industry
to plan for the long term. One reason why landing values increased and
incomes rose in the past 12 months—15 per cent. in the Scottish
fishing industry—is the new stability that was introduced in the
industry as a result of those
decisions.
Mr.
Goodwill: Perhaps I have developed a cynical attitude to
how decisions are made in Brussels because of the number of
Conciliation Committees that I was involved with when I was in the
Parliament. But does the Minister really think that decisions will be
made earlier, or will it be a case of waiting till the 11th hour, as
usual? Does he think that if politicians are given more time to discuss
TACs, they will also have more time to try to circumvent the scientific
advice and more time for other issues apart from the strict scientific
arguments?
Mr.
Bradshaw: I suspect that for some time the majority of
decisions on TACs and quotas will continue to be made at the December
Council. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that there is always a
trade-off. It is not an accident that the Council meets in December,
just a couple of days before Christmas, as it means that Ministers and
the Commissioner need to get away. Otherwise, one could seriously
imagine discussions going on and on. The timing provides a discipline
to decision
making. Last
week, we reached an agreement on deep-sea species which otherwise would
have been part of the December Council negotiations, and we came to a
decision on the management plan for the Mediterranean. That historic
agreement provides the first proper management regime for the
Mediterranean. Because of those agreements, there is less to argue
about in December, which should make things simpler and more
straightforward. It follows logically that the fewer high-priority
issues that countries have to concentrate on, the easier it is for them
to make the sometimes difficult decisions that they need to make to
ensure a sustainable fishery. That is certainly the case for some
countries.
Mr.
Carmichael: In answer to the question from the hon. Member
for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr. MacNeil), the Minister said
that there is no reason why cod stocks would not recover in the North
sea if they were allowed to. He also referred to scientific evidence
that I understand is to be published tomorrow. But if, as is
believed, that evidence indicates that there has been significant
temperature change in the North sea, and that that has led to a
movement of feed stuffs, particularly certain plankton, away from the
southern part of the North sea, surely that would be a good reason why
cod stock levels in the North sea would not recover in the way that was
anticipated by the commitments made at the world summit on sustainable
development. Does that not drive a coach and horses through the concept
of maximum sustainable
yields?
Mr.
Bradshaw: The hon. Gentleman makes an important and
sensible point, and I would have agreed with it if he had put it
slightly differently; perhaps along the lines of whether it is worth
while putting a significant part of our fishing industry out of
business to enforce maximum sustainable yield principles on cod, given
the uncertainty resulting from climate change as to whether cod will
recover in the North sea. I entirely accept the point. However,
Ministers must rely on the consensus of scientific advice, which is
that cod has been seriously over-fished in the North sea—without
question, it has been fished down to historically low levels—but
that there is a small glimmer of hope with the 2005 year class, which
is the best year class for several years. I am advised that although
the North sea is near the southern extremity for cod, cod is found
further south and there is no reason why it should not recover in that
part of the
sea.
Bill
Wiggin: The Minister says that the UK was one of the main
driving forces behind the Commission initiative, but the Commission
will still need to be pressured to ensure adequate delivery. What
aspects of the delivery is he uncertain about? What aspects does he
think the Commission cannot deliver without UK
pressure?
Mr.
Bradshaw: One area that we raised that is of particular
concern to our fishing industry is the rules on gear marking, which we
think are over-prescriptive and over-bureaucratic. The Commission had
proposals, in its original action plan, to simplify the rules for gear
marking, and we hope very much that the promise given at the Council by
the Commission to produce more details on some of these technical
issues next year will include addressing matters such as the gear
marking
rules.
Mr.
MacNeil: The Minister alluded earlier to some stability in
the North sea in recent years, particularly with black fish being a
thing of the past. I can certainly testify to that, having spoken to
some crewmen off a pelagic boat last Saturday night, but there is still
a rumour of pelagic clawback in the industry, which is causing a great
deal of instability, particularly as some factories that the boats had
been landing to are involved in investigations. I would add that boats
were allowed a 20 per cent. margin of error. The landings were allowed
by fisheries officers at the time, but there is still a persistent
rumour of pelagic clawback. I look to the Minister for an assurance
that that will not be the case and that pelagic boats, particularly
Scottish pelagic boats, can look forward to a future free from any
bureaucratic involvement or interference that would adversely affect
their futures.
Mr.
Bradshaw: I can certainly say to the hon. Gentleman that
as long as we maintain the trajectory that we are on, which is one of
increased enforcement, better compliance and, as a result, rising
prices and good stocks of mackerel—the herring situation is
slightly more difficult this year—yes, there should be a good
future for the pelagic fleet. I cannot give him the assurance that he
seeks on clawback this year, but I will write to him after this
Committee. It is an important principle that not only we but other
member states adhere to that the Commission retains the power, if there
is evidence and admission of serious over-fishing or illegal fishing,
to claw back the next year. I am not aware that that should have a
significant impact on us this year. We certainly made the point that it
should not in any way affect the EU-Norway talks; one of the
industry’s main concerns was that it might
do.
Andrew
George: What effort is the Minister’s Department
either engaged in or commissioning from ICES or perhaps elsewhere as
regards its own assessment of what measures would be required to
achieve maximum sustainable yield? I wrote to ICES in the summer and I
received a letter back only on 22 November from Hans Lassen, the head
of the advisory programme. It certainly indicates that for some stocks
the period will be three to five years and for others it will be up to
20 years in terms of very significant reductions in mortality. What
efforts has the Minister’s Department made to seek or commission
that
advice?
Mr.
Bradshaw: The advice that we have is that the hon.
Gentleman is right that for some of our stocks, maximum sustainable
yield would mean a significantly more precautionary approach than the
one that we have operated hitherto—not all of a sudden, but over
a number of years, to ease it in. The benefits of that approach would
be significant to the fishing industry and the availability and size of
the stocks in future. We think that haddock and prawns are pretty much
already being fished according to the principles of maximum sustainable
yield. Cod and flatfish are not. They are perhaps at the other end of
the scale, and the rest of the quota stocks are in-between. Of course,
there are significant stocks fished around our coasts that are not
quota stocks at all and from which very good incomes and profits are
being made, including in the hon. Gentleman’s
constituency.
Mr.
Goodwill: The Minister mentioned that cod were at the
other end of the scale. It might be useful for the Committee to have an
idea of what percentage current North sea stocks represent of the
stocks that would be required to meet maximum sustainable yield for
cod.
Mr.
Bradshaw: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, the
scientific advice on cod for the past five years has been zero catch.
That is using the current less precautionary approach than the maximum
sustainable yield approach. That is one reason why we have some concern
about some of the detail of maximum sustainable yield, particularly in
a mixed fishery. If the level of fishing effort is set in relation to
the state of the weakest stock, the impact on the UK fishing industry
as a whole would be devastating because, in most of our fisheries, cod
is caught as a by-catch. That is one of
the areas where we will work very hard to establish what we can do
through technical measures, the use of different gear and targeting
closed areas in order to enable our industry to continue to make good
money from the stocks that are in good shape such as haddock, nephrops
and others. We also need to allow the cod stock to recover to a level
where it is again a healthy and profitable resource for our
fishermen.
Mr.
Carmichael: I would like to bring the Minister’s
attention to the first of the documents: EU Document No. 9898/06 from
31 May 2006 and particularly to page 16 of the bundle for the
Committee. In the second to last paragraph—if it assists the
Minister I can read it out—and in the context of the December
fisheries Council, the EU document states
that “some Member States
considered that the time pressure built into the present system was
helpful in reaching decisions
efficiently”. Can
the Minister find out who those people are and arrange to have them
taken out and shot? I can think of many words to describe the
procedures of the annual December Council and efficient is not one of
them.
Mr.
Bradshaw: One should make a distinction between the time
pressure at the Council itself, and the run up to it. One of the
difficult and frustrating things for all of us is that the principal
scientific advice on the main stocks comes too close to the December
Council and gives very little time for parliamentary scrutiny, for
consultation with the industry, or for preparatory work with the
Commission. One of the ideas we had previously was to move the date of
the December Council back to the spring in order to give us more time.
What the Commission has proposed is an alternative version of that,
which involves bringing the main scientific advice forward to allow
more time. I repeat what I said earlier: there are advantages to
forcing Ministers to make difficult decisions by shutting them in a
room in Brussels for hours on end. We see this not only in fisheries,
but in a lot of serious EU negotiations. It forces people to make
decisions and, if we did not do it, I am unsure about what other means
the hon. Gentleman would use to reach a
deal.
Bill
Wiggin: When talking about fishing yield, can the Minister
provide an explanation as to why the wording has been changed between
the communication and its previous draft? In section 3.4 the earlier
draft of the document used the term “maximum sustainable
yield” whereas the final communication uses the term
“sustainable exploitation while
providing high yields”
Is there a difference in the
meaning as well as the words? Will this mean that TACs could be higher
than maximum sustainable yield or lower?
Mr.
Bradshaw: I will write to the hon. Gentleman about that.
We did not like the original wording for the reasons that I gave
earlier relating to the difficulty of a mixed fishery with
cod.
Mr.
Reid: One of the background documents points out that
currently the scientific advice for nephrops is given in October and it
says that the Commission has asked for advice to be provided earlier in
the year. That
document was printed back in May. Can the Minister inform us if there
has been any progress since then and will the advice for nephrops in
future be provided at an earlier time in the
year?
Mr.
Bradshaw: Yes, I understand that it will
be.
Andrew
George: I welcome any measure to enhance the use of
multi-annual quotas or for ensuring that plans are set far enough in
advance to avoid the eleventh-hour brinkmanship that happens every
December in the fisheries Council. The sixth bulletin point under the
heading “Long-term Plans”, on page 39 of the bundle, says
of mixed fisheries
that “where different
stocks are normally caught together, the plans should include technical
measures to ensure fishing of all the stocks in compatibility with
their respective
targets”. Does
that not mean the target for the species that is most at threat, which
in the North sea is cod and in the western approaches is sole? The
biggest problem in a mixed fishery is surely that that one species sets
the precedent for the rest of the fishery, so could the Minister
explain whether that advisory note is quite
right?
Mr.
Bradshaw: I read that sentence slightly differently. It
talks about using “technical measures” to allow the
different stocks to be fished
“in compatibility with their
respective
targets”, which I read
rather differently from the hon. Gentleman, in that there is room to
use technical measures to exploit stocks that are in better shape,
while not catching stocks that are in bad shape, where at all
possible.
Mr.
Goodwill: One species that is not mentioned in the
document is the sand eel, which is possibly the most important species
in the North sea, although there is a reference to shortfalls being
made up from farmed fished, many of which are fed on sand eels that are
industrially harvested. Does the Minister have any views on what the
maximum sustainable yield of sands eels should be and whether the
measures that are currently in place to limit the Danish catch of sand
eels should be made
permanent?
Mr.
Bradshaw: We would certainly take the view—not only
under a maximum sustainable yield approach, but even under the current
approach—that there should be a small or zero sand eel catch.
That is something for which we have argued repeatedly at fisheries
councils.
Mr.
Carmichael: May I draw the Minister’s attention to
paragraph 3.1, on page 19 of the bundle, which is headed
“Changing the fishing year” and comes under the heading
“Recommendations for improving the system”? It
states: “TACs
are currently decided for a calendar year from 1st January, both in the
EU and in neighbouring third countries. It might be possible to alter
this management period to run for twelve months from a different
date.”
Can the Minister say what the Norwegian
Government’s view on that is and whether we are likely to see
early
progress?
| 
