Mr.
Bradshaw: No, I am afraid that I cannot, but the hon.
Gentleman has put his finger on a potential problem, in that it would
be in the Norwegians’ interests to change their fishing calendar
to fit in with any such changes that we
introduced.
Bill
Wiggin: Under the proposals, most of the scientific
evidence that is relevant to the UK fishing industry will still be
unavailable until October. That means that the time frame in which the
UK can assess the recommendations and make decisions is the same as
before the proposals. Can the Minister say whether there are any plans
to change the time in which the data from scientific surveys become
available, so that the UK benefits from a longer consultation
period?
Mr.
Bradshaw: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is right
that under the changes the majority of stocks of interest to the UK
industry would still be unavailable until later in the year. It may be
that the main stocks in terms of volume and value—nephrops
stocks are the main ones for the UK industry, followed by the pelagic
and white fish stocks—would be made available earlier, which
would be
helpful.
Mr.
Carmichael: May I refer the Minister to page 23 of the
bundle? Step 1 of paragraph 3.5, which is headed “Changing the
timing of legislative proposals and decisions”, relates to the
period June to October. It outlines the proposals in relation to the
management of stocks for which the Community alone has responsibility
and “for which ICES
scientific advice is available in
June”. The final
sentence of step 1
says: “This
approach could be extended in future to pelagic stocks managed by the
Community alone and (subject to reaching earlier agreement with other
coastal states) to blue whiting, mackerel and shared herring
stocks.” Can the
Minister say what is being done to achieve that, because it could be
significant?
Mr.
Bradshaw: I cannot, but I imagine that such issues are
being closely discussed with Norway, Iceland and the other countries
with which we have the annual negotiations. I imagine that it would
also be in their interest to reach agreement as early as possible so
that they, too, do not face the same time pressures as we have done.
The hon. Gentleman will remember that a couple of years ago we did not
get an agreement with Norway in time for the December Council. That
made life very
difficult.
Bill
Wiggin: Currently, there is a general rule that TACs are
not usually altered by a margin of more than 15 per cent. Is the
communication likely to lead to more instances in which special
circumstances mean that that general rule will be
circumvented?
Mr.
Bradshaw: I very much doubt it. As I explained in my
answer to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr.
Carmichael), the trend is towards more
multi-annual approaches because that provides more long-term stability
for the industry.
The contrary to what the hon.
Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) suggests will be the case. He will
find that there will be fewer examples of the Commission or member
states being prepared to go outside the 15 per cent., up or down.
However, there are occasional exceptions to the rule. I mentioned
nephrops earlier. A year or two ago, there were sole in the south-west.
When we got an increase significantly bigger than 15 per cent., that
was a big benefit to our industry. However, such cases are exceptions
and we shall see fewer and fewer of
them.
Mr.
Reid: Can the Minister tell us during which month the
scientific advice on nephrops will be available in
future?
Bill
Wiggin: Has the Minister done an assessment of the impact
that changing from over-fishing, which I think is where we are at the
moment, to maximum sustainable yield will have on the 26,000 jobs that
depend on the UK fishing
industry?
Mr.
Bradshaw: No, we have not. The process is long-term; we
aim to conclude it by 2015. However, as I said in a previous answer, it
would be wrong to see achieving maximum sustainable yield as a zero-sum
game. Although there may well be difficult decisions in the short term,
the long-term objective is to have a much bigger and healthier stock
and therefore a bigger and healthier fishing
industry.
Mr.
Carmichael: May I take the Minister to page 26 of the
bundle? It is an extract from the European Scrutiny Committee’s
37th report. The bottom of the page states
that “catches of many
demersal species, such as cod and haddock, have declined dramatically
in recent years, as a result of too much fishing in relation to their
productive potential.” I
do not hold the Minister responsible for the content of that report,
but will he confirm that that statement does not bear robust scrutiny,
particularly in respect of haddock?
Mr.
Bradshaw: Yes. That is surprising; the hon. Gentleman may
like to raise the issue with the
Committee.
Mr.
MacNeil: Has the fishing, the economic exploitation, of
any other species been adversely affected by the strictures of the cod
recovery
plan?
Mr.
Bradshaw: I suppose it could be argued that this
year’s fishing of haddock has been marginally affected. If boats
are not able to use technical measures to avoid catching cod and they
are targeting haddock and reaching their cod allocation, that, of
course, will have an impact on whether they can carry on fishing for
haddock. However, by
and large I would say no. In the past few years, we have seen big
increases in the catches of
and income from species that are now more economically important to our
industry—in Scotland, nephrops, and in the North sea generally,
haddock and the pelagic species. That has not been prevented by the cod
recovery plan, although of course there is a danger this year that if
the Commission decides to ratchet the cod recovery plan up or down
again, that could have an impact on a nephrops fishery because of the
by-catch problem. That is always a danger, but it is one that we have
so far managed to stave off. Bill
Wiggin: What other measures does the Minister think that
the EU needs to resolve to meet the Johannesburg commitments to
maintain or restore stocks to levels that can produce maximum
sustainable yields and will that be done by 2015, the target
date?
Mr.
Bradshaw: I hope that it will be done by 2015, because
they are important commitments that have been signed up to not only by
the EU and us as a nation state but by the world community. There is
growing concern, not only in this country but around the world, about
the over-exploitation of our marine resources. A report recently
suggested that if we did not do something drastic over the next few
years, most of the world’s commercial fish stocks would be at or
near extinction by 2045. I think that that was slightly
over-dramatised, but it gave people an indication of the seriousness of
the challenge. As I have said, the UK Government is in the vanguard of
the countries in the European Union that are doing their best to hold
the Commission and the other member states to those
commitments.
Bill
Wiggin: What does the Minister think will be the key
objectives for the December Fisheries Council and for the EU Norway
negotiations? Will he tell the Committee what he would consider to be a
successful outcome for the British fishing
industry?
Mr.
Bradshaw: That is a subject for a whole other debate,
which we will have on the Floor of the House in the next couple of
weeks. The UK objective—I am sorry that this is the answer that
I give every year—is to maximise fishing opportunities for our
industry where that is justified by the science, but to be prepared to
take tough measures where there is real concern about the health of a
stock in order to secure that stock and fishing opportunities in the
future. In terms of an overall agreement, we will hope again to try to
persuade the Commission that it needs to stick as closely to the
scientific advice as it possibly can, while recognising that there
needs to be an agreement and that in order to have a qualified majority
sometimes the original recommendations and proposals need to be changed
somewhat. We will certainly be fighting for British interests but, more
importantly, I think, we will be fighting for the interests of
fish.
Mr.
Carmichael: The Minister will see in the European Scrutiny
Committee’s report, on page 27, the various elements that would
be involved in the construction of a long-term plan, one of which is
that it would “be based
on impartial scientific advice”.
So say all of us. What can the Minister
do to ensure that we broaden the base of that scientific advice,
particularly if there are now challenges to what the Minister describes
as the scientific consensus, for example about the impact of water
temperature on fish stocks? How can we ensure that that information is
fed in and that work is expanded and resourced in the way that the
traditional stock level research has
done?
Mr.
Bradshaw: That is certainly an issue that we have been
feeding in, and that I know that the North sea regional advisory
council has fed in, to the process of preparation for the December
council. It is important that ICES and other organisations look as far
as they can, given the uncertainty about the potential impact of
warming that I referred to earlier. It is important, too, that we do
not take on some of the drastic recommendations that have been made by
august institutions such as the Royal Society to close off most of the
North sea based around the state of one stock that might well be
threatened in that area because of multiple causes, not just
over-fishing.
Bill
Wiggin: May I press the Minister a little more on the
scientific basis that was the core part of that question? Who will
provide the science for the basis of the Commission’s policy
statement that will be published in April? Will it come from ICES,
STECF or someone
else?
Mr.
Bradshaw: It will come primarily from ICES, which is the
internationally recognised institution that provides such advice, but
we feed in our own views based on some of the successful fisheries
science partnerships that the Government have pioneered in recent
years. I recognised when I came into this job that in many cases there
was a Berlin wall between the industry and the scientists, and that we
would not get anywhere unless there was much better buy-in by the
industry to the science. Some of the schemes have been very successful.
For example, I hope that one of them will lead to a positive move on
monkfish in Scotland at this December’s
Council.
Mr.
MacNeil: For the record, I would like the Minister to
explain what he believes are the positive achievements of the cod
recovery plan. What yardstick will be used to mark its end, or will it
carry on for an infinite period of
time?
Mr.
Bradshaw: I do not want to be accused of being complacent
about the cod recovery plan. Although the decline in cod was steady and
dramatic for a number of years, it now seems to have stopped. As I said
earlier, the 2005 recruitment is better than it has been for several
years, but, by historical standards, it is still low. It is only one
year class, and it can be fished out quickly and
easily. The
measurement of success for the current recovery plan is whether it hits
its objective of recovering stock to a safe biomass. We are still a
long way from that, which is one of the reasons why the Commission is
considering a root and branch review of the plan next year. It is
important that we are engaged intensively in that and that we get it
right.
Bill
Wiggin: Under the plan, quota management will be separated
from other management decisions such as those relating to fishing
effort. Is there likely to be further separation, or will that
structure remain in
place?
Mr.
Bradshaw: There is likely to be further separation between
effort and quota management because of the need for a more
sophisticated approach to managing our fisheries. We are already seeing
an increasing role for effort controls as opposed to quota management.
For example, a drastic reduction in the TAC for cod this year would not
make much sense because of the new recruitment. All that it would lead
to would be an increase in discards. Effort would be a more sensible
way of addressing the continuing need to protect
cod.
Bill
Wiggin: Could the Minister let us know the timetable for
the other management decisions and separate regulations that are
mentioned in section 3.6 of the
communication?
Mr.
Bradshaw: As I said, the Commission has already committed
itself to producing more details on that next year, and we will
certainly keep up the pressure for the rest of the proposals in the
original action plan to be addressed as soon as
possible.
Bill
Wiggin: In the Minister’s explanatory memorandum,
he states that
“Commission clearance procedures
prevent early release of formal
proposals”. With that in
mind, how accurate will the Commission’s policy statement be,
and how much of it is likely to correlate with the formal
proposals?
Mr.
Bradshaw: Is the hon. Gentleman referring to the December
Council proposals? His question is not
clear.
Bill
Wiggin: I think I am asking the questions in this
Committee.
The
Chairman: I think that the Minister has answered as best
he
can.
Mr.
Bradshaw: Without clarification as to whether the hon.
Gentleman is referring to the December Council proposals or the maximum
sustainable yield proposals, it is difficult for me to answer the
question, Mr. Weir.
[Interruption.]
The
Chairman: One at a time, please, gentlemen. We shall now
move to the
motion. Motion
made, and Question
proposed, “That
the Committee takes note of European Union documents No. 9898/06,
Commission Communication on improving consultation on Community
fisheries management and No. 11373/06 Commission Communication on
implementing sustainability in EU fisheries through maximum sustainable
yield; as well as the Commission’s policy statement on fishing
opportunities for 2007; and supports the Government’s objective
of ensuring the long-term sustainability of fish stocks through an
effective management process, whilst at the same time, providing a
sustainable future for the UK fishing
industry.”—[Mr.
Bradshaw.]
5.19
pm
| 
