The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
†
Borrow,
Mr. David S.
(South Ribble)
(Lab)
†
Bradshaw,
Mr. Ben
(Minister for Local Environment, Marine and
Animal
Welfare)
†
Brown,
Lyn
(West Ham)
(Lab)
†
Crausby,
Mr. David
(Bolton, North-East)
(Lab)
†
Goodwill,
Mr. Robert
(Scarborough and Whitby)
(Con)
†
Gray,
Mr. James
(North Wiltshire)
(Con)
†
Hoyle,
Mr. Lindsay
(Chorley)
(Lab)
Huhne,
Chris
(Eastleigh)
(LD)
†
Love,
Mr. Andrew
(Edmonton)
(Lab/Co-op)
Steen,
Mr. Anthony
(Totnes)
(Con)
†
Watts,
Mr. Dave
(Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's
Treasury)
†
Wiggin,
Bill
(Leominster)
(Con)
†
Williams,
Mr. Roger
(Brecon and Radnorshire)
(LD)
Keith
Neary, Committee
Clerk
†
attended the Committee
European
Standing Committee
Monday 23 April
2007
[Mr.
Hywel Williams
in the
Chair]
Conservation of the European Eel
4.30
pm
The
Minister for Local Environment, Marine and Animal Welfare
(Mr. Ben Bradshaw):
The European eel is a
fascinating creature. It starts its life in the Sargasso sea, the
spawning ground for all European eel, thousands of miles from our
shores. It drifts as larvae across the Atlantic ocean towards the
European coastline on the currents of the gulf stream and the north
Atlantic drift. When it reaches European shores, it undergoes a
metamorphosis transforming intotiny transparent glass or baby
eels and finding its way into inland rivers. There it undergoes a
startling transformation, feeding and growing often for 15
to20 years first into yellow, then silver eels in preparation
for the journey back to the sea and a long swim back to the spawning
grounds in the Sargasso
sea.
However, there is
a danger that that miracle will not be repeated for much longer. The
European eel is under serious threat of extinction. For several years
in its advice to the European Union, the International Council for the
Exploration of the Sea has warned that the stock is considered outside
safe biological limits and that the fishery is unsustainable. It is no
exaggeration that the state of the eel is absolutely
dire.
In the past two
decades, juvenile recruitment is estimated to have fallen to between 1
and 5 per cent. of historic levels throughout the whole of Europe. The
situation in the United Kingdom mirrors that across the rest of the
European Union. Unless decisive action is taken there will no longer be
any eel left in European waters, let alone sustainable eel fisheries.
It is almost four years since the Council agreed that the parlous state
of the stock required urgent attention. It is therefore vital that
agreement is reached and a recovery plan implemented as soon as
possible. The negotiations on the proposal have been protracted and
difficult. Having read the papers, members of the Committee will recall
that the original proposal detailed prescriptive measures involving an
extension of the common fisheries policy into inland waters prescribing
a close season for eel fisheries during the first 15 days of each
month.
The Government
argued that any workable solution to the problem would have to
recognise the diverse systems in place for the regulation and
management of freshwater fisheries in each member state. We also argued
that the control and enforcement measures needed to be proportionate
with member states best positioned to judge what was needed in their
particular countries. I am pleased to say that the latest draft
reflects those
suggestions.
The
Government believe that the proposals as they stand are acceptable.
They afford member states maximum flexibility while tackling a European
problem with a
European-wide solution. The five principal requirements of the draft
proposal oblige member states first to draw up eel management plans
based on river basin districts as defined by the water framework
directive. The plans must have the objective of achieving in the long
term the escapement of a number of spawner eels equivalent to at least
40 per cent. of the best estimate of the number that would have escaped
in the absence of human
activity.
The second
requirement is to reduce fishing effort or catches of eel by 50 per
cent. in maritime waters over a five-year period. Thirdly, when
fisheries for juvenile or glass eel are permitted with the territory of
member states, a percentage—currently 65 per cent. of the
catch—should be sold for restocking waters that currently have
low natural recruitment. The fourth proposal is to draw up registers of
persons or vessels licensed to fish for eel and those licensed to act
as first buyers and sellers. Finally, member states should satisfy
themselves that live eels exported from their territory were caught in
accordance with the measures provided for by the
regulation.
The first
three points are essential if we are to see a recovery of the
stock. Management plans offer member states a flexible solution
enabling them to choose from a toolbox the most appropriate means for
each river basin to obtain the 40 per cent. escapement objective,
whether that be reducing commercial fishing activity, restocking
measures, introducing fish passes so that eels can freely migrate up
and down rivers or improving habitat. The set-up is important so that
member states can take into account their unique
conditions.
My
Department has been working with the Environment Agency, the Scottish
Executive and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development in
Northern Ireland to ensure that plans are developed in all the United
Kingdom’s river basin districts. The work is currently on target
to meet the Commission’s deadlines and takes into account
conditions both in terms of conservation and socio-economic impacts and
work towards increasing escapement from UK
rivers.
In my previous
correspondence with the Committee dated 12 April, I explained that the
proposal was due to reach political agreement at the April Agriculture
and Fisheries Council and that it was our intention to vote for the
proposal. That meeting took place in Luxembourg last Monday. Since
then, I have written again, but I understand that the letter has failed
to reach members of the Committee in time for today’s debate. I
wish therefore to give hon. Members a short oral update of what
happened at the
council.
Mr.
Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley) (Lab): My hon. Friend talks about
the problems of overfishing. Does he believe that there is any link
between global warming and the decrease in numbers of
eels?
Mr.
Bradshaw:
The simple answer is that we do not know. There
is a lot of speculation about the impact of climate change on the
populations of migratory species such as eel and salmon, but no
definitive
evidence.
As
I was saying, we discussed the dossier on Monday at the Agriculture and
Fisheries Council in Luxembourg, where the German presidency sought
agreement. A
round-table discussion commenced in which member states’
positions were made clear, and then the presidency, in agreement with
the Commission, tabled another compromise text. I am afraid that due to
the intransigence of members led by France and Spain, who wish there to
be no provisions for restocking in the legal text, a compromise could
not be reached. The German presidency therefore did not put the dossier
to the
vote.
Although
I regret that no agreement could be reached at that council, I am none
the less pleased that our debate will serve a purpose, as it is no
longer being held after the event, as it were. I hope that our
discussions will enable the dossier to be subject to clear scrutiny and
that the remaining obstacles to agreement in the European Fisheries
Council can be overcome in time for the proposal to be adopted in May
or June at one of the next two
councils.
The
Chairman:
We now have until half-past 5 for questions to
the Minister. Questions should be brief and asked one at a time, as we
are likely to have ample time for hon. Members to ask more than one
question.
Bill
Wiggin (Leominster) (Con): What guarantees can the
Minister give that the EU powers extending into inshore fisheries in
these proposals will not set a precedent for
others?
Mr.
Bradshaw:
As I said, one of the reasons
why we opposed the original proposal was that we were concerned about
that issue. At the same time, we accepted that with regard to some
species that spend part of their time in marine areas and part in fresh
water, there will inevitably be a grey area. Given the serious state of
the eel stock, we felt that some Europe-wide action was important,
because it is recognised by scientists as a single stock. The UK acting
alone within our own fresh waters will not make enough of a
contribution to enable the stock to
recover.
Mr.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD): Is there any
evidence that the reduction in the eel population has anything to do
with the introduction of exotic parasites through
aquaculture?
Mr.
Bradshaw:
No, not so far as I am aware. A number of
theories have greater weight—obstacles in rivers, hydroelectric
facilities and so forth. I am not aware that any suggestion has been
made that, as for example with migratory salmon, parasites are causing
a
problem.
Mr.
Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con): The
Commission’s proposal for protecting the eel in the period
before member states establish management plans involves a 15-day
moratorium at the beginning of the month. What evidence is there that
fishing pressure will not just be transferred to the end of the month,
and that fishermen who might have taken every weekend off will not just
fish at weekends? On the same point, silver eels usually migrate on
dark, moonless or stormy nights. Is there a concern that if one or a
succession of such nights were to occur during the fishing period, the
protection afforded duringthe beginning of the month would not
help the species at all?
Mr.
Bradshaw:
My understanding of the most up-to-date version
of the proposals is that the 50 per cent. cut—the 15-day
non-fishing period in the month—would occur only in countries
that had not prepared adequate action plans in time. We do not expect
that to be the case in this country. The action plans that will apply
here are almost complete. To answer the hon. Gentleman’s first
point, we do not expect such a scenario in the UK. He might be right
when he says that lunar, tidal and various other meteorological factors
impact on the timing of eel migration. My understanding is that because
of that, the situation would even itself out over time, given the
15-day closure
period.
Mr.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con): It may be that I
missed a previous discussion on the matter, but as I understand it, the
main evidence for the dire state of the eel stock is the fact that the
amount that has been caught in recent years has been significantly
reduced, from 2,500 tonnes to 700 tonnes or something of that order,
and from 1,500 tonnes to 700 tonnes more recently. However, might not
that have occurred for other reasons? For example, could it have
occurred because demand for jellied eels has dropped off? People might
be catching fewer eels because they are selling fewer. What other
evidence is there that eel stocks have been reduced in the extreme way
that the Minister describes? Could the reduction in the catch, which is
seen in the figures, be a partial solution in
itself?
Mr.
Bradshaw:
No, because the estimates
aboutthe state of the stock that are conducted by the
independent international scientific body, ICES—the
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea—are based
not only on catches but on research at sea and in rivers. There is no
danger that demand for the product will fall. One of the problems is
that there is such strong demand for the product from the
fareast that the price of baby eels can reach as much as
€1,000 per kilo. That is more than for caviar. If a fisherman
catches these little eels and can choose between selling them to
someone who is going to restock them or selling them to a far-east
market, obviously the incentive is to sell them to the latter. That is
why it is vital that a minimum percentage of the catch, 65 or 75 per
cent., is used for restocking. That was the main sticking point at the
council on Monday. France and Spain and one or two other countries
opposed any restocking requirement—an approach that we think
would drive a coach and horses through the
proposals.
Bill
Wiggin:
On restocking, what reasons were given, and how
could we ensure that the 60 to 75 per cent. of a catch that is used for
restocking is allocated across the whole eel fishing
community?
Mr.
Bradshaw:
It would be the responsibility of anyone who had
a licence as a fisher or a business involved in the fishery to ensure
that that proportion of their catch was sold for restocking. I cannot
recall the Spanish Minister making a convincing or coherent argument at
the council. I just recall a lot of bombast.
Mr.
Williams:
What evidence is there of the effect of
recreational angling on the population of silver eels? Is it a
particular
factor?
Mr.
Bradshaw:
None at all.
Mr.
Goodwill:
The French Minister for Agriculture and
Fisheries, Dominique Bussereau, was largely responsible for torpedoing
the proposal. On his website—coincidentally, he is up for
re-election—he said that he
has
“protected the future
for 2,000 professional eel fishermen on the Atlantic
coast”.
How long does the
Minister think that that future would be if those measures were not put
in
place?
Mr.
Bradshaw:
That is a very good question. There is a short
and a long-term view on all such sustainability and fish and marine
conservation issues. In the short term, someone may claim that their
fishers’ livelihoods have been protected, but that is not a
sensible or visionary approach. I have already said that we have seen a
reduction of between 95 and 99 per cent. in the eel population. If we
continue in that way, there will be no future at all for Mr.
Bussereau’s eel fishermen in his constituency, and I do not
think that they will be very pleased about
that.
Bill
Wiggin:
What research has the Minister presented to
the European Commission and his counterparts in the council to
demonstrate that the UK eel fisheries, such as Lough Neagh, are already
meeting a 40 per cent. escapement level? What will be the cost to
industry and the taxpayer of demonstrating that under the new
proposals?
Mr.
Bradshaw:
In the conversations and
negotiations that we have had on the subject, we have spoken at great
length with Commission officials about the situation in Lough Neagh,
which is very important to us. It is the biggest wild eel fishery in
the European Union. We are confident that it could—if it does
not already—easily meet the 40 per cent. escapement requirement.
It relies very heavily on restocking. Lough Neagh restocks its baby
eels from other rivers such as the Severn. My understanding is that it
will be supportive of the proposals as they stand. If there were no
restocking requirement, they would be extremely worried that they would
not be able to get enough eels to restock, because they would all be
sold to the far-east market.
Mr.
Gray
:
What consultation has the Minister had with
the industry in Loughs Neagh and Erne, and indeed in the Severn, as to
what effect the proposals will have? I take it from his earlier answer
that he understands that the industry will be perfectly content, but
what actual consultations has he had and on what is he basing his
understanding?
Mr.
Bradshaw:
As the hon. Gentleman will see, we talked to
interested parties in connection with drafting a regulatory impact
assessment and also throughout the negotiations. It is not fair to say
that everybody is
happy or that no one will be affected; there is no doubt that there will
be an impact on the market for those who catch baby eels in the UK and
sell them to the far east, but we need to take tough action and to
introduce a minimum restocking requirement. If we do not, the future
for the eel will be parlous indeed.
Mr.
Williams:
In his introductory remarks, the Minister said
that he had consulted the devolved authorities in Scotland and Ireland.
Has he had any consultations with the devolved Administration in Wales,
or is the European eel a non-devolved
species?
Mr.
Bradshaw:
I think that I am right in saying that the
Environment Agency is responsible for this matter in Wales. I might be
wrong, and if so I shall correct myself before the end of the
debate.
Mr.
Goodwill:
The European eel is a long-lived
species—males live for six to 12 years and females from nine to
20 years in rivers before they migrate, and they might live up to 85
years. As they have high levels of body fat, they are prone to building
up levels of bioaccumulative chemicals. In particular, Greenpeace has
identified PFCs, perfluorochemicals, and certain brominated
flame-retardants. Is there any evidence that such chemicals have
contributed to the decline of the
species?
Mr.
Bradshaw:
Not that I am aware, but I will endeavour to
write to the hon. Gentleman to clarify the
matter.
Bill
Wiggin:
What discussions has the Minister had with the
European Trade Commissioner regarding the export of glass eels to
China, whose growing demand is forcing up elver prices? What does
Mr. Mandelson think about that? What measures, if any, is
the Commission introducing to deal with the matter, and when will such
measures be
introduced?
Mr.
Bradshaw:
The United Kingdom and Sweden are among the
countries that believe that the trade is not justified and that it
should be stopped. We are taking a proposal along those lines to the
convention on international trade in endangered species meeting in
June. Our contention is that under CITES regulations, the trade to
which the hon. Gentleman referred is not
sustainable.
Bill
Wiggin:
Will a CITES ban on the export of elver eels not
kill the profitability of the entire British eel
industry?
Mr.
Bradshaw:
I think that it is highly
unlikely that CITES will agree to our proposals. Sweden and the United
Kingdom are by far the greenest current members of the European Union,
but we will not get majority support either at CITES or the European
Union just because we make an argument in favour of something. However,
we try our best to protect endangered species such as the eel, and we
will continue to do so.
Bill
Wiggin:
With reference to article 7 of the proposed
regulation, which relates to eel management plans, has the UK got its
way and secured the removal of the plans for the scientific, technical
and economic committee for fisheries to evaluate UK management
plans?
Mr.
Bradshaw:
No, we have not, because we think that there has
to be Europe-wide assessment and consistency, and that a European
institution has to do it. The STECF deals with a range of such issues,
so the Government are content with such an
approach.
Mr.
Goodwill:
In defining the fishing
activities that need to be restricted, the document refers to fishing
for, retaining and landing eels. To what extent does the problem of
by-catch impact on the species? Presumably, it would be legal to catch
eels and discard them, and I guess that the eels might well not survive
such a process.
Mr.
Bradshaw:
I am unsighted on that issue, so I will have to
write to the hon. Gentleman to supply further information about
it.
Bill
Wiggin:
The measures proposed may lead to some form of
price control on the route to making restocking viable. Has the
Minister thought about what sort of support would be available for UK
eel fisheries and whether any European fisheries funds will be made
available? If they are made available, will budgets be cut from other
areas of
fishing?
Mr.
Bradshaw:
Helping a fishery to become more sustainable is
certainly an area in which the European fisheries fund would in theory
be payable. If the measure is passed, we will have to consider whether
to use those funds in such a way. One could argue that that would be a
better use of European fisheries funds than in other areas in which
they are spent. However, there may be better uses for such money in the
UK environment, and that is something that we will consider when the
time
comes.
Mr.
Williams:
The Environment Agency says that information on
the eel is limited, as has been pointed out. Any improvement in the eel
population will also be slow and incremental. What proposals does the
Minister or the Commission have for a better system of monitoring the
population and age distribution within the population of the European
eel?
Mr.
Bradshaw:
The hon. Gentleman is right to
say that not much is known about the stock—even less than is
known about the wild salmon stock and the reasons for its decline. I am
informed, by the way, that by-catch is not a serious problem in this
fishery because it is a targeted and specialist fishery. He is also
right that the probable time frame for any recovery is long. One can
only hope that politicians—both French and from other
countries—will have a strong view of their long-term interests
so that we can take the right
decision.
Mr.
Gray
:
I find myself in the dark on this issue. We
have heard that we do not really know about the stocks or why they have
gone down so much in terms of catch.
We have also heard that we do not know much about the way of life of the
eel and the question whether they travel by night, and so on. Given all
that, how can we even begin to be certain that the action plan stands a
blind chance of success? What is the scientific basis for the proposed
action
plan?
Mr.
Bradshaw:
We cannot be certain, but we have taken the
view, as have the majority of member states, that we must do something.
The proposals in the action plan are based on the best available
evidence and advice about what we need to do both in terms of the
proportion of eels that we need to allow to re-escape into the sea and
the proportion that need to be used for restocking rather than sold for
food or for growing on in the far east. As the behaviour and survival
of the stock is so uncertain, there are no guarantees. However, when a
stock is in such dire straits we believe that it is right to adhere to
precautionary principles. Some people would say that the package of
measures is not precautionary enough, and we will work hard to ensure
that it is not watered down at future council
meetings.
Mr.
Goodwill:
The 350 fishermen at the fishery on Lough Neagh
are described as engaged on a seasonal basis. Are they engaged in other
fishing activities for the rest of the time or are they part-timers who
have other jobs? How big an impact will the restrictions have on their
ability to care for their families or is work at the fishery an
additional source of income, in the same way as going out and netting
salmon used to be for some North Yorkshire
fishermen?
Mr.
Bradshaw:
I am afraid that I do not know what the
fishermen do for the rest of the year. However, I think that the value
to the Northern Ireland economy is about £4 million a
year.
Bill
Wiggin:
In response to my hon. Friend the Member for North
Wiltshire, the Minister said that he did not know whether the plan
would work, but he felt that he had to do something. However, in his
opening comments he said that he was unable to do anything because of
French bombast—I think that that was the word he used. What is
to stop the French behaving like that again and what science has he got
to back up his plan, on which I believe the Environment Agency has been
working since
2001?
Mr.
Bradshaw:
We do constant research and,
indeed, reporting and more research are part of any management plan.
The hon. Gentleman misquoted me slightly. I did not say that I did not
know whether the proposals would work; I told his hon. Friend the
Member for North Wiltshire that there could be no guarantees. He also
misquoted slightly what I said about the French Minister’s
contribution at the council. I did not say that the measure had failed
because of the French Minister’s bombast; I described the
paucity of the argument in that
way.
There
are no guarantees that the French position will change, although one
might have more hope that it will change following the French election.
Even if the French position changes, the outcome will depend on the
arithmetic at the council. A French “non” is not enough
on its
own, and it would be wrong to single out France as the only country to
oppose the proposal. Spain also spoke against it, as did a number of
south-eastern European Union countries. If a presidency thinks that it
has a qualified majority on a dossier as important as this, I would
expect it to put that to the vote. That is certainly what we did when
we held the presidency, and I hope that the German presidency will do
the same. If it does not, it must mean that it does not have a
qualified majority. It is very much up to the presidency, the
Commission and progressive countries such as the United Kingdom to
persuade countries that are still not on board not to oppose this
matter when it arises again. However, there can be no guarantees. This
is a negotiation.
Bill
Wiggin:
Let us take the worst possible case of the
negotiation not succeeding. What else could the Minister do to try to
save our
eels?
Mr.
Bradshaw:
We will have to carry on trying. We will go back
to the drawing board to see whether we could be doing anything more,
domestically. The action plans for our rivers, which we already have,
are almost complete. However, the German presidency has shown a strong
commitment to the environment, and I hope that it will see this matter
through. I see more chance of the proposal succeeding under the German
presidency, as Germany is a major country with a strong environmental
movement. There was a great deal of unhappiness in Germany about this
matter not being agreed on Monday, so there may be willingness to give
it a final push. If it does not succeed, we will face the matter when
we come to host the
presidency.
Mr.
Goodwill:
Given the difficulty of
building a qualified majority on this issue, does the Minister not
think it somewhat bizarre that we have several new landlocked member
states that have votes on the Fisheries Council when these measures
will have no impact on the economy of their countries? They may well
find themselves negotiating on issues unrelated to this, and their
votes going against the interests of the European eel and the general
environmental issues under consideration
here.
Mr.
Bradshaw:
I am not sure whether I would
wish to deprive any landlocked country of its right to hold a view on
an issue relating to the marine environment. We all share a
responsibility to protect it, and, having just persuaded several
landlocked eastern European countries to join the International Whaling
Commission so that they might vote with us and against the Japanese, I
do not think that the principle that the hon. Gentleman elucidated
would be sensible. I spend most of my time trying to persuade countries
such as the Czech Republic to take a strong interest in the future of
the marine environment, and to be with us on the side of the good guys
and against some of those that would not take such tough action. We try
to do exactly the same to persuade them to be on the right side on this
issue.
Mr.
Gray:
The Minister’s answer is indicative. None the
less, does he not agree that there is a question over the competence of
the European Union? He says that this is not setting a precedent, but
is there not a chance
of that, given that this relates to the management of all manner of
inland waterways? Would it not be odd if a similar principle were to be
applied to salmon?
The
Chairman:
Order. We need to restrict the questions to the
matter being debated
today.
Bill
Wiggin:
What work has the Minister’s Department
been doing to improve the habitat of eels, and what resources does his
department have for improving wetlands and migratory pathways for eel
recovery?
Mr.
Bradshaw:
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Environment
Agency does a great deal of important work on habitat protection
generally in our rivers and inland waterways, as well as on improving
and easing the routes for migratory species. I do not have the exact
figures on spend with me today, as this debate was not specifically
about that. However, I will write to the hon. Gentleman with a full
explanation of what the Environment Agency does in that
regard.
Bill
Wiggin:
What research is the Minister and his European
counterparts undertaking into the life cycle of eels and their spawning
behaviour? Have there been any further developments in identifying
spawning behaviour? According to the original 2003 Commission
communication, the commonly held view that the European eel’s
spawning grounds are in the Sargasso sea might be inaccurate. Is the
Minister aware of any other spawning grounds for European
eels?
Mr.
Bradshaw:
No, I am not.
Bill
Wiggin:
What research is his Department doing?
Mr.
Bradshaw:
I shall have to write to the hon. Gentleman
about that. However, on the basis of the research of which we are
currently aware, I do not know of any other spawning
grounds.
Bill
Wiggin:
I am grateful. We know that there has been little
success in farming eel spawning stock in European waters. Are any
scientific projects being undertaken to establish whether it is
possible to break the dependence on elvers from Atlantic spawning
stocks?
Mr.
Bradshaw:
Not as far as I am aware. Again, however, I
shall write on the hon. Gentleman on that.
Bill
Wiggin:
I am grateful to the Minister for this surge in my
postbag; he is very kind and generous.
In the 2005 explanatory
memorandum, the Minister stated:
“Primary legislation may...be
required to enable the introduction of effective management plans for
eels.”
Is that still the
case, and will he be able to use the marine Bill to introduce such
plans?
Mr.
Bradshaw:
We think that we can do most of what we need to
do through secondary legislation.
Again, however, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman to confirm that.
Indeed, I am being given a nod by my
officials.
Bill
Wiggin:
Again, I am most grateful. According to ICES,
elver recruitment levels are 1 per cent. of 1980 levels, but some in
the industry suggest that the real figure is in the region of 20 per
cent. What is the Minister’s estimate of the current elver
recruitment level? What research is DEFRA and its European counterparts
undertaking to find out precise data on UK and European elver
recruitment?
Mr.
Bradshaw:
As I indicated in my introductory remarks, we
estimate the figure to be between 1 and5 per cent. That is
based on ICES estimates, on which we all depend, and on our own
research. Again, however, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman to
outline exactly what research we are doing on the
issue.
Bill
Wiggin:
What research is being undertaken to reduce the
eel fishing mortality rate in the UK, France and elsewhere in
Europe?
Mr.
Bradshaw:
I shall have to write to the hon. Gentleman on
any of the questions that he asks me about that
research.
Bill
Wiggin:
I fear that the Minister’s pen will have
run out of ink by the time we have finished. I am most
grateful.
Will the
Minister confirm my major fear on this issue? He is trying hard, and I
have never doubted his good intentions, but he has been put off once by
other European countries. He will go back and try again if the Germans
allow him to do so, but there is a lot that he could be doing in the
meantime. Many of the elvers that we are discussing are from the
Severn, which passes close to my constituency—indeed, the river
Wye runs into it. Why, therefore, is he unable to do more without our
European counterparts? Is our eel management plan ready, for
example?
Mr.
Bradshaw:
It is virtually ready.
However, the situation is not quite as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
This is not about me being rebuffed. The Conservative party is trying
to learn how to re-engage in Europe—with limited success, I
acknowledge—and the hon. Gentleman will understand that the
European Union consists of25 countries. Issues under the
competence before us are decided by qualified majority, and although I
am confident that the majority of the Council is on our side, the
Germans clearly did not think that they had a qualified majority at the
previous Council meeting. The UK, along with like-minded countries,
will do everything that it can to ensure that the presidency and the
Commission have a qualified majority on the proposals, as long as we
are still satisfied with them at the next Council meeting. That is how
it works.
Bill
Wiggin:
As the Minister is telling us how things will
work, will he explain why he is so determined to have a high percentage
of re-stocking? He said earlier that the position was the opposite to
that for salmon and that salmon fry and parr are introduced into rivers
so that they home back to them when they are adults. That is not the
case for eels, so if just one river produced all the spawning or adult
stock for the whole of Europe, that would still work. The Minister,
however, is determined to spread re-stocking, and there is probably
something environmentally good about that, but he must have some
scientific reason for his determination because—he will correct
me if I am wrong—the issue seems to be the stumbling block with
our European counterparts.
Mr.
Bradshaw:
Certainly, some of those southern European
countries feel that they would be ‘giving up’ baby eels
from their rivers to re-stock rivers elsewhere. However, the reason for
that is that those rivers, which are mainly in northern Europe, have
had problems with regard to their survival rates and re-stocking. I
mentioned the primary reason for the re-stocking requirement earlier:
if you do not have a re-stocking requirement, the probability is that
most of your baby eels will be sold for growing on or consumption in
the far east and not for replenishing the
stocks.
Bill
Wiggin:
Therefore, the purpose behind this is exclusively
financial; it is not environmental. As I understand it, his prime
concern is that there would be no glass eels at all, because every one
would be sold at £500 to £1,000 per litre. By insisting
on a re-stocking minimum, at least some have a chance of making it to
adulthood. Is that
correct?
Mr.
Bradshaw:
We certainly think that a high re-stocking
requirement is essential if this eel recovery plan is to have any
chance of working.
The
Chairman:
If there are no further questions, we will
proceed to the debate on the motion. I call on the Minister to move the
motion.
Motion
made, and Question
proposed,
That the
Committee takes note of European Union Document No. 13139/05, Draft
Council Regulation establishing measures for the recovery of the stock
of European eel; recognises the long outstanding need to conserve and
enhance the European eel stock; and approves the Government's intention
to vote for the adoption of this proposal, provided it makes suitable
provision to allow for the re-stocking of glass eel to European inland
waters. — [Mr.
Bradshaw.]
Bill
Wiggin:
Thank you, Mr Williams. It is a pleasure to have
you in the Chair.
This motion tabled by the
Minister states that the Government will support the proposal if it
enables the glass eel to be suitably re-stocked in European inland
waters. However, as it now seems that measures may not be a priority
for the forthcoming EU presidency for some time, this may be an
opportunity for the Minister to make a revised attempt to push for a
more overarching package that also greater satisfies the UK
interest.
There need
to be important changes to the original proposals in order for them to
be acceptable to the UK eel industry, which felt that the original
terms were unworkable. In his regulatory impact assessment, the
Minister has identified a number of key issues that need to be
addressed, such as recognition for the progress that the UK industry
has made by itself.
Improving eel fisheries will not only be about restricting effort,
reducing the number of days that eels can be caught and making
provisions for a 40 per cent. escapement rate; it is about taking an
holistic approach that goes further than just papering over the cracks.
That is what the original proposals did. They focus more on effort than
habitat and the long-term direction to improve the overall state of eel
fisheries. Moreover, they could penalise the UK industry, which has
already demonstrated that it is operating in an efficient and
sustainable manner.
Lough Neagh, the largest
commercial wild eel fishery in western Europe has suffered from
decreasing numbers of glass eels. The number of elvers has fallen from
an average of 8 million per year to less than 1 million per year. Lough
Neagh has managed to continue to thrive through sustainable management
and without the added EU bureaucratic burden. Lough Neagh operates with
a 40 per cent. escapement rate and also re-stocks by receiving regular
deliveries of glass eels from the River Severn. Members may be
interested to know that, on Thursday, some 1.5 million glass eels will
make the trip to Northern
Ireland.
The
industry’s view is that priority needs to be given to improving
habitats and migratory pathways. However, these proposals potentially
offer very little to improve this situation. The Minister concurred
with this view in his letter of 11 January 2007 to the Chairman of the
European Scrutiny Committee, the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East
Falkirk (Michael Connarty). The Minister stated that he doubts
whether:
“any short-term
measures directed principally at fishing effort would be equitable due
to the diverse nature and complex lifecycle of the European eel, and
furthermore, they would be highly disruptive, costly to enforce and
likely to have little effect on eel
stocks.”
I am
curious as to why, during the UK presidency of the EU in 2005, these
proposals were not given the leadership and drive needed to make them
more reflective and better able to deal with elver recruitment and
improve the prospects for adult eels.
The French may be holding
things up now—as are the Spanish, according to the Minister. The
German presidency did not push hard enough for a deal, but the Minister
had an opportunity two years ago to drive these measures through.
Perhaps part of the problem of building up eel stocks is the gulf in
knowledge between the current state of eel stocks and our understanding
of the eel lifecycle. Following on from that comes the reason for the
recent decline in eel numbers, which we still do not fully understand.
More needs to be known about the eel and its life cycle. Management
plans will need to adapt and be updated to take into account the
improvement in
knowledge.
Mr.
Gray:
The debate and the
question-and-answer session earlier have been interesting. However,
although people talked about all sorts of things that they were going
to do, there was an astonishing lack of knowledge about the facts right
now. The Minister replied to a remarkable number of my hon.
Friend’s questions by saying, “I do not know the answer
to that, but I will write to the shadow Minister.” That is an
extraordinary lack of knowledge for a debate such as
this.
Bill
Wiggin:
I must temper my agreement with my hon. Friend
with my gratefulness to the Minister for at least agreeing to write to
me and for ensuring that his Department has done the research that is
necessary to be able to answer those questions. That is positive.
However, my hon. Friend has touched on an important point. That is one
reason why we need this debate. It is difficult—the
Government’s position is particularly difficult—to insist
that the plan will work when there is a great void of knowledge about
eel numbers. We Conservatives will try to help. We all want a
sustainable eel stock. However, it would be comforting for us to know
that the plan was based on sound science, as DEFRA proposals usually
are. We missed a chance two years ago, when we were in charge of the
European presidency, to get this sort of legislation agreed and the
deals done, however it works. The Minister keeps telling me he knows
how it works, but I should like to see the deals done, rather than have
lectures in statutory instrument
Committees.
I am
concerned about the effectiveness and workability of the regulation,
because it will take an intrusive step into the UK’s competence
over internal waters. The Minister said in the explanatory memorandum
that he does not want to set a precedent for the EU having competence
in inland waters for other fish species. However, those remarks fall
far short of a guarantee against further measures. In its present form,
the regulation will offer little benefit to our eel fisheries and will
lead potentially to substantial costs. The UK industry is already
taking sustainable measures and the possible EU interference under this
proposal is unwelcome, to some extent. We already know, from the
implementation of the single farm payment, about the impact of
DEFRA’s incompetence on UK industry and the taxpayer and there
is, in this draft regulation, potential for further administrative
ineptitude.
Will
the Government sufficiently utilise the European fisheries fund or will
the UK taxpayer be burdened? As it stands, the regulation does not
address issues and could place unnecessary burdens on both the eel
industry and the Government. The Minister will need to ensure that the
UK receives a derogation on the 15-day seasonal closure. Will he
demonstrate that the demands of the proposals are already being met in
the UK and that further bureaucratic burdens are unnecessary? He
must also consider measures at domestic and European level to improve
the habitat and the migratory paths of eels. We all want sustainable
management of our natural resources: it is up to him to deliver
it.
5.13
pm
Mr.
Roger Williams:
Thank you,
Mr. Williams. I believe that this is the first time that I
have had the pleasure of serving under your chairmanship. No doubt,
this morning we escaped from our labours down in Wales and are
addressing the important matter of the European eel. This has been an
opportunity to reflect on the incredible life cycle of an animal that
remained unknown for many years. Lots of suppositions were made about
where it went and how it reproduced and there is, of course, still some
uncertainty about whether we have the full details about
that.
It is because we
do not have detailed knowledge that the Minister has to rely on the
cautionary principle. I
do not criticise that, but for us to have certainty that a particular
eel management plan will work means that much more research must be
done and much better knowledge must be obtained about how this creature
lives and reproduces. The huge physiological changes resulting from
eels coming from sea water into fresh water are amazing—not to
mention the return
journey.
Much mention
has been made of Lough Neagh, but none has been made of Llangorse lake
in my constituency, which once had an eel fishery. It has not been
netted for about 10 years, I was told this weekend, because the eel
population has decreased so much. The people who remember that
happening say that the eel were caught and transported alive to Holland
and Belgium in water tanks. I do not know whether that is true, but it
was the best information that I could get at the weekend.
There was another part of the
fishery, on the river coming out of Llangorse lake, the river Llynfi,
where there was an eel trap that caught eels, which were taken to
Billingsgate. However, because of low eel numbers, and because it was
not possible to depend on the price given for eels in Billingsgate,
that trade has finished as well.
As to whether the French
Minister might be looking to the next election, I am not looking to be
elected in the near future, unless the Brown bounce is bigger than I
expect.
Bill
Wiggin:
I was in Billingsgate just the other day and there
were eels for sale. They are in what look like drawers; the large eels
are in those, kept in the dark and kept wet, but there were also large
numbers of jellied eels and other eel products for sale, so that is
something that is alive and well.
Mr.
Williams:
Yes, I am sure that eels are on sale in
Billingsgate, but they are not supplied from Llangorse any more, which
must be a huge disappointment to the eel enthusiasts who want to eat
the very best product.
I ask the Minister to insist
that we improve our knowledge and expertise in this matter; only that
will lead to the success of the eel management plan, and to our
achieving what we want. Other countries may resist the measure, but
what assurances do we have that even if it is accepted into European
policy and regulation, other countries will ensure that the detail of
the eel management plan will be adhered to with the enthusiasm usual in
this country? It will be no good if we carry out our part of the plan
and other countries do not do the same. We all look to a plan that will
give us a sustainable eel population, and we shall certainly support
the Minister.
5.17
pm
Mr.
Gray:
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr.
Williams the Chairman—as opposed to Williams the eel, the hon.
Member for Brecon and Radnorshire. I do not intend to delay the
Committee excessively, but there seems to be a more fundamental issue
to deal with than some of those that we have covered so far. Of course
it is important that we should know more about the life cycle of the
eel, and about whether any of the plan would work and whether we can
conserve that valuable creature better than we have done until now.
That is a vital issue and no one in this Room would disagree about the
importance of finding a satisfactory method of conserving the
eel.
However, we
have not yet considered this afternoon whether the constitutional
method by which we propose to attend to the matter is the right one.
There seem to me to be two or three reasons for thinking carefully
about that. First, despite what the Minister said earlier, there is
evidence that the measures proposed by the European Union could have a
significant effect on the livelihoods of 300 or 400 people—the
eel fishermen particularly around Lough Neagh.
The Government’s
explanatory memorandum sets out at some length the belief that there
would, for a short period, be a significant effect on a number of the
people in the industry. It states that there would be a significant
impact, although in the longer term, because of the conservation of
stocks, those people’s livelihood might well be safeguarded.
However, there would be a bad effect on the employment of perhaps 300
or 400 people, particularly in Northern Ireland but also around the
River Severn.
The
question, then, is whether bringing in the European measure would save
those jobs, the industry or the stocks. It could be argued perfectly
coherently that the British Government and the industry itself are well
able to do just that.
We have heard that the quantity
caught in Lough Neagh has decreased from 1,500 tonnes before the year
2000 to 700 tonnes currently. There has already been a significant
reduction in the catch. We must ask ourselves whether it has occurred
because there is less to catch or because the industry has contracted
for one reason or another—possibly because of a reduction in
demand, possibly because people have been tempted into other jobs. The
Minister seems to be saying that because the eels are so valuable in
the far east, the reduction has occurred simply because there are fewer
to catch, but surely the industry itself ought to be able to judge the
matter.
We come to the
bigger constitutional issue. Is it necessarily right that the people
who are well qualified to judge whether the fishermen are doing the
right thing—namely, this Parliament, and possibly the Northern
Ireland Assembly once it is up and running—are the people
qualified to judge whether what the industry is doing in its own
self-interest is sufficientto preserve it? The same applies to
many other industries—on all sorts of occasions, one might
reduce how much one is catching or killing to be certain that
one’s long-term livelihood was thereby preserved—but
surely the domestic Government are the people best qualified to judge.
Although the Minister joked a moment ago about some of the inland
nations in the European Union that are making up their minds about the
matter, I am not certain that parliamentarians from Liechtenstein,
Russia—well, not Russia—or assorted inland European
nations are necessarily qualified to judge whether a reduction in the
Lough Neagh catch is a good or a bad
thing.
This is where
we come to the question of European competence. The Minister said that
he is confident that the proposal will set no kind of precedent for
constraints on other inland waterways by the European Union. One thinks
particularly of the question of salmon and whether the salmon catch in
Scotland, and
to a lesser degree in England and Wales, might at some future stage be
constrained in the same way that the eel catch is being constrained
under the measure. Is that precedent being set? He says that he hopes
that it is not, but by the law of human nature, if the European Union
finds that its Act has been successful and the European eel is being
conserved better than previously, surely it is a short step from there
to say, “If it has worked with regard to eels, let’s make
sure that it works with regard to salmon,” or to other inland
waterways.
I am one of
those who was not at all certain that there should be an inland
waterways directive. We being an island, I have always taken the view
that we ought to preserve our inland waterways for judgment from this
place and not the European Union. But now we find that the animals in
our inland waterways are equally being directed, constrained or managed
in one way or another by diktat of the European Union. I am not at all
certain that that is a constitutional precedent that we ought to
encourage.
Leaving
quite aside the question whether we want to conserve the eels—of
course we do; no one in this Committee would disagree with
that—it seems to me that there is an important constitutional
question that the Minister has not really addressed. I hope that he
will do so in his reply. Does he truly believe that it is right that
the European Union should decide on the activities of the fishermen in
Lough Neagh and elsewhere, or should that generally be a matter for
this place to
decide?
5.23
pm
Mr.
Bradshaw:
In response to the points raised by the hon.
Member for North Wiltshire, I must point out to him that neither
Liechtenstein nor Russia is a member of the European Union at the
moment.
Mr.
Bradshaw:
Those were the two countries that he cited as
dictating how we should manage our eel population. The Tory party still
has some way to go—it should know first of all which countries
are members of the European Union—before it starts to re-engage
in European
diplomacy.
Mr.
Goodwill:
Liechtenstein was referred to as a landlocked
country. May I inform the Minister that it is a double-landlocked
country, like Uzbekistan? There are only two double-landlocked
countries in the
world.
Mr.
Bradshaw:
That is very interesting. The serious point is
that it is a single European stock. I suspect that, were the UK taking
draconian measures to restrict our own fisheries in the absence of any
EU measures, the hon. Member for North Wiltshire would
be the first to come to the Committee to say that what he wanted to see
was a level playing field. What we are keen to see throughout the
European Union is a level playing field and meaningful measures to
protect that endangered
stock.
That
leads me to the point made by the hon. Member for Brecon and
Radnorshire. Who will be the policeman? In the end, the Commission will
ensure that any action plans are properly enforced and implemented. I
say to the sceptics to look at the fine recently levelled against
France.
Mr.
Williams:
Have they paid
it?
Mr.
Bradshaw:
Yes, indeed. They have paid most of it. It was
the biggest fine in European history for non-compliance with an EU
regulation, and it concerned a fisheries matter. I have every
confidence that the Commission will ensure that any proposals are
properly implemented and that we get the level playing field that we
want. If we have any suspicion that that is not the case, we are not
backward in coming forward in such
matters.
Bill
Wiggin:
The Minister is absolutely right; he is not
backward in coming forward. He was complaining in
The
Daily
Telegraph just the other day about the French not being fined for
breaking their quota
regulations.
Mr.
Bradshaw:
It is not quite true to say that they have not
been fined. We are arguing for a payback in quota, but that issue is
still outstanding and has not yet been resolved. One of the things that
I was going to say to the hon. Gentleman is that he is very
enthusiastic now about getting stuck in and making deals, as I think he
said, in Europe. I am looking forward to his going off to speak to the
Christian Democrats in the German Government, who I understand are not
yet officially speaking to his party, or even to his new best friends
in the Czech Republic, who are very important in this debate, to
persuade them that they should be voting on our side in the
negotiations. He is right to say that it is about making deals, but
making deals is about winning allies. I look forward to his winning
allies in Europe
too.
Question put
and agreed
to.
Resolved,
That the Committee takes note
of European Union Document No. 13139/05, Draft Council Regulation
establishing measures for the recovery of the stock of European eel;
recognises the long outstanding need to conserve and enhance the
European eel stock; and approves the Government's intention to vote for
the adoption of this proposal, provided it makes suitable provision to
allow for the re-stocking of glass eel to European inland
waters.
Committee
rose at twenty-seven minutes pastFive
o’clock.
