The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
†
Bradshaw,
Mr. Ben
(Minister for Local Environment, Marine and
Animal
Welfare)
†
Cunningham,
Tony
(Workington)
(Lab)
†
David,
Mr. Wayne
(Caerphilly)
(Lab)
†
Engel,
Natascha
(North-East Derbyshire)
(Lab)
†
Goodwill,
Mr. Robert
(Scarborough and Whitby)
(Con)
Huhne,
Chris
(Eastleigh)
(LD)
†
Kidney,
Mr. David
(Stafford)
(Lab)
Malins,
Mr. Humfrey
(Woking)
(Con)
†
Pound,
Stephen
(Ealing, North)
(Lab)
†
Ruane,
Chris
(Vale of Clwyd)
(Lab)
†
Scott,
Mr. Lee
(Ilford, North)
(Con)
†
Wiggin,
Bill
(Leominster)
(Con)
†
Williams,
Mr. Roger
(Brecon and Radnorshire)
(LD)
Mrs E
Commander, Committee
Clerk
†
attended the
Committee
The
following also attended, pursuant to Standing Order No.
119(5):
Hopkins,
Kelvin
(Luton, North) (Lab)
European
Standing
Committee
Monday 25
June
2007
[Mr.
Jim Hood
in the
Chair]
Fisheries: By-Catches & Discards
[Relevant
Documents: EU Document No. 8179/07 and addenda 1 and
2.]
4.30
pm
The
Minister for Local Environment, Marine and Animal Welfare
(Mr. Ben Bradshaw):
May I say what a pleasure
it is to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr. Hood,
after a break of more than six
years?
I
am grateful to the European Scrutiny Committee for
its recommendation for a debate on the Commission’s proposal to
reduce by-catch and eliminate discards in European fisheries.
Discarding fish wastes valuable natural resources and has not only a
detrimental impact on the sustainability of fish stocks, but
significant social and economic consequences for the long-term
viability of the fishing industry. It is a particularly complex
problem, not least because often discarding occurs because fishermen
cannot always control what they catch. Frequently fishing across the UK
and EU is conducted in areas where a mixture of species is available,
some of which are of no commercial interest and which often are caught
alongside target species.
Fishermen who have run out of
their quota for one species might continue to fish for other species
for which they have a quota. The species for which their quota is
exhausted will then be discarded if caught. In addition, fishermen
might discard smaller fish to make room for larger and more valuable
ones, even when the rules on minimum landing sizes have been complied
with—known as high-grading, which is particularly prevalent in
pelagic fisheries. Fishermen might also discard fish for other more
valuable species or because there is no market for what they have
caught. There is general agreement that levels of discarding in
European fisheries are unacceptably high and must be reduced; it is the
issue that most discredits the common fisheries policy in the eyes of
the public. A radical approach, therefore, is needed.
Mindful of that, the Commission
has tabled for discussion a policy paper proposing possible
solutions—the document before us today. We welcome warmly this
forward-thinking and radical paper, which represents a significant step
forward, and generally the Government support its intentions. In
particular, we welcome the Commission’s focus on the economic
incentives that give rise to discarding. It is only if we focus on
those that we will find solutions that really
work.
The proposals
mirror UK priorities for reform and simplification of
the common fisheries policy, address the need to minimise the negative
impacts of commercial fisheries on marine ecosystems and present a
framework
by which outcomes, rather than the means to achieve them, will be
regulated. Also there is welcome recognition that solutions must be
bespoke to the particular circumstances of individual fisheries and
that the one-size-fits-all approach is not appropriate.
We have some reservations,
however, particularly about the Commission’s focus on discard
bans as a key tool. Not only is the practical
implementation of such a mechanism problematic in the mixed fisheries
that typify the EU situation, but there will be heavy dependence on
enforcement and control, which will have significant resource
implications, particularly because the emphasis will have to be on
controls at sea. In addition, we would expect the Commission to make
more explicit how the future protection of juveniles will be achieved
following its proposals to remove minimum landing sizes and how that
will square with its objective of fishing activity reflecting much more
the needs of the market. Certainly, we would want to avoid encouraging
the development of a market in small fish. Ultimately, industry buy-in
will be critical to the success of any measure and we will actively
encourage fishermen to develop and adopt more sustainable fishing
practices. Their full and active involvement in the consultation
process, therefore, is essential, as to is that of environmental and
consumer interests, which must be engaged.
The Commission’s
proposals are a good starting point for a debate that will continue
during the course of this year and draw out many of the difficulties
presented in the proposals. However, because of their far-reaching
implications, it is essential that there is a full and frank debate on
the Commission’s ideas. The UK Government intend to play a key
role in shaping the future management regime and I am sure that my hon.
Friends will give me plenty of food for thought in that regard
today.
Although it is
important that adequate time be given for considering
the many issues involved, we must not lose the impetus that the
Commission’s paper provides to address this real and pressing
problem. It is important, therefore, that the discussions are pursued
urgently, and I have encouraged my Portuguese counterpart already to
provide the necessary time as a priority under its
presidency.
The
Chairman:
We now have questions until 5.30 pm. The briefer
the questions, the more we will
get.
Bill
Wiggin (Leominster) (Con): With reference to the
communication on the way forward, how many
regulations will be required to cover all UK and Community fisheries,
and how often will they be updated? The communication’s
proposals would promote micro-management. Why then are regulations
being used? Why, under the principle of subsidiarity, are local
fisheries not entrusted to make those
decisions?
Mr.
Bradshaw:
The number of regulations will
depend on what the proposals actually are. We are at a very early stage
in this process and, as I said, all we have at the moment is a general
policy document for debate. As I indicated in my opening remarks, one
of the things that we will seek to avoid as the discussions proceed is
a system that makes the existing regulatory structure even more
complex. We shall try as hard as we possibly can to avoid
that.
Similarly, we want to avoid
micro-management, but, whether one is dealing with measures to tackle
discards or other measures, the problem inevitably arises that without
absolute buy-in by the fishing industry in particular areas, some level
of monitoring or management, whether by selective gears or various
technical measures, will be necessary if we are to protect fish stocks.
However, we shall seek to avoid the extra complexity to which the hon.
Gentleman
refers.
Mr.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD): It is a
pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Hood. I
accept the philosophy and the principle of the proposals, but there is
a suggestion that the implementation should be progressive. I
understand the thought behind that, but how will implementation work in
practice? Like changing the side of the road that people drive on, if
done gradually, it would lead to chaos. Unfortunately, that is what I
foresee.
Mr.
Bradshaw:
Of course, like the Leader of the Opposition,
the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), we are all
progressives now, so I do not believe that any of us should have too
many problems with a progressive
approach.
To address
the questions of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire more
seriously, the idea is to start in certain fisheries or geographical
areas. For example, we are already piloting some anti-discard
initiatives: there is one in the North sea on nephrops, and another is
about to begin in the Irish sea. It makes sense to suck it and see. We
need to find out what works best in particular types of fishery, rather
than try a big-bang approach and impose solutions across the board
straight
away.
Kelvin
Hopkins (Luton, North) (Lab): It is a pleasure to serve
under your chairmanship, Mr. Hood. I have just become a
member of the European Scrutiny Committee, so I missed your chairing of
it because you recently retired from that honourable
service.
Does the
Minister know what proportion of fish are taken by foreign fishermen
from what were formerly British national
waters?
Mr.
Bradshaw:
It is impossible to give a figure because fish
do not respect the national borders to which my hon. Friend refers.
They swim and move, and that is one reason why, whatever one thinks of
the common fisheries policy, we would have to reinvent something rather
like it to reach agreement with our neighbours with whom, incidentally,
we have always shared waters and in whose waters our fishermen have
traditionally fished, just as they have traditionally fished in ours.
For the reason that I gave, it is not possible to give the figure that
he
seeks.
Mr.
Lee Scott (Ilford, North) (Con): Could I get a guarantee
for the UK fishing industry that it will not be placed at any
commercial advantage or be burdened with excessive levels of
bureaucracy, compared with its European or Norwegian
counterparts?
Mr.
Bradshaw:
I am not sure whether I heard the beginning of
the question, but I shall seek to answer it.
If I do not, the hon. Gentleman may have another go in a minute. We are
keen that our industry should not be subject to any burden that other
fishing industries are not subject to. That is why rules have been
agreed across the EU, and why we have the Commission to police the
rules and to ensure that they are implemented on a level playing
field.
There is
widespread concern in several EU countries about the problem of
discards. It is not just a problem in our fisheries. It affects most of
the fisheries in most European countries, and there is a desire to do
something about it. Having said that, the challenges of doing so are
not
insignificant.
Chris
Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab): I have had several
representations from sea bass fishermen in my constituency. In fact, I
have put down parliamentary questions on the issue. Are any steps being
taken by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to
protect sea
bass?
Mr.
Bradshaw:
Yes, we are considering whether to increase the
minimum landing size for sea bass. We consulted on that a year or so
ago, but we held off making a decision following representations made
to us by the commercial sector. We held off making a decision,
following representations made to us by the commercial sector. It was
worried that, if we increased the minimum landing size in the way that
we proposed, it could add to the discard problem. The hon. Gentleman
was absolutely right to draw a connection between sea bass and
discards.
On the plus
side, sea bass stocks are in pretty healthy shape at present. They are
not one of the stocks that we are most worried about, but we are very
keen not least with the recreational sector and its huge contribution
to the economy to do what we can to boost the stocks in which it is
particularly interested. We hope soon to reach a decision on extra
measures to protect sea
bass.
Mr.
Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con): I do not
know whether my letter has crossed the Minister’s desk yet, but
what message can he give fishermen in Whitby who have invested
considerable time, effort and money in selective fishing measures aimed
at only catching larger cod? They were told at short notice that the
cod fishery has closed and have had to revert to the whiting fishery,
which means that they are murdering a lot of immature cod. Does that
not send out the wrong messages to fishermen who are trying to do the
right
thing?
Mr.
Bradshaw:
The hon. Gentleman identifies one of the
difficult challenges that we all face with a discard ban or with any
technical measure designed to protect one species that can then have a
deleterious effect on another. However, I commend those responsible for
taking such steps. I am not aware of having seen the hon.
Gentleman’s letter yet, but I shall try to respond to it this
week.
Bill
Wiggin:
The 2002 Community action plan envisaged that
discards would be banned by 2006. That date has passed, so when does
the Minister believe that discards will be
banned?
Mr.
Bradshaw:
That is not really in our
hands. It depends on how rapidly the Commission comes forward with
concrete proposals and under which presidency those proposals are put
to the Council of Ministers. However, I hope that it will not drag
itself out too much longer. I regret the fact that the action plan has
already been delayed. As the hon. Gentleman would accept, it is a
complex area. As I said in my introductory remarks, it is important
that we have a frank and comprehensive debate involving the industry
and the region advisory councils so that we come up with good proposals
and action rather than anything that is a bit hasty or ill thought
through.
Kelvin
Hopkins:
My hon. Friend will appreciate that I want to
talk about policing the fishermen and the fishing vessels rather than
the fish. Of course, fish cross national boundaries at sea, but Norway
has much better fish stocks than other coasts around Europe simply
because they are not members of the common fisheries policy. Does my
hon. Friend
agree?
Mr.
Bradshaw:
I do not accept the premise of my hon.
Friend’s question. All fishing nations face serious challenges
in managing their fish stocks sustainably. There is always an
inevitable tension between the fishing industry that tends to want to
carry on fishing and the scientists who are rather cautious in their
recommendations. Norway faces similar challenges to us in declining
stocks and is having to make some tough decisions. It has a coastline
that is slightly apart from the rest of the European Union. Few parts
of the United Kingdom have coastlines that go for tens of miles without
stretching over areas of sea that were traditionally fishing grounds
for other nations. It is easier for Norway to manage its fishery
unilaterally, but it must negotiate with the European Union in some
detail about the stocks in which we share an interest. We profit from
being a member of a club of 27 in those negotiations and our fishing
industry certainly benefits from the deals that we strike with Norway
over access in Norwegian
waters.
Mr.
Williams:
There may be increases in costs due to having to
travel to farther flung fisheries than the use of more selective gear.
Will there be support for our fishing industry in the interim
period?
Mr.
Bradshaw:
There is already significant public support for
our fishing industry, but we must be careful. One of the priorities of
United Kingdom policy in recent years has been to try to stop public
subsidy for anything that will lead to less sustainable fishing. An
important reform of the common fisheries policy
agreed back in 2002 was that the European Union should stop paying
subsidies, for example, to increase the capacity of vessels. I am not
sure about the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion that we should help
boats—in the form of payment—to go further and further
afield because some of the deep sea stocks that they are targeting are
in very poor shape. Those stocks age very slowly and are therefore not
replenished very quickly.
[Interruption.] The hon. Member for
Leominster mentions the orange roughy. I would not want to displace
fishing efforts close to our shores by encouraging boats to go further
afield and deplete some of those deep sea stocks that are very
difficult to replace.
Bill
Wiggin:
When the Minister was considering answering the
previous question, I am sure that he had some awareness of how much
this was likely to cost. Has he been given any figures by his
Department and if so, can he share them with
us?
Mr.
Bradshaw:
It is very difficult. We have not done a
regulatory impact assessment yet because there is not anything to go
on. It is only possible to talk in general terms.
Clearly, if we end up achieving a more sustainable fishery and the
recovery of stocks, we would benefit both the industry and the economy
as a whole. When we see the concrete proposals, we will assess whether
the costs of those proposals—in terms of the extra monitoring or
regulation—are outweighed by the benefits that will be
guaranteed by stock recovery. However, that is an assessment that we
will want to make a bit nearer the
time.
Kelvin
Hopkins:
The papers before us suggest that the measures
that have been taken so far have been singularly unsuccessful. Does my
hon. Friend agree that if national limits were extended substantially
and that member states were given national responsibility for managing
fish stocks within those areas, we could solve the problem more
effectively than through the common fisheries
policy?
Mr.
Bradshaw:
No, not necessarily. I do not think that
the management of our fisheries was particularly good beforehand. I
would urge hon. Members to be cautious about running down our fishing
industry. This is the fourth year in row that our fishing industry has
recorded record value in landing. It is not all doom and gloom. Some of
our major ports, such as Brixham and Newlyn in the south-west and some
of the north-east Scottish ports, have again recorded record landings
year on year under the Labour Government. We have had to take some
tough decisions, reduce the size of our fleet and bring it more in line
with the health of the fish stocks. There are still very serious
challenges in some areas. Cod is in a poor shape. Sole and herring have
suffered a big reduction, but a lot of the other stocks are doing very
well.
In the next
review of the common fisheries policy, the six to 12-mile limit could
be reviewed. That is something that we may consider in due course, but
it still does not obviate the need for us to work in partnership with
fellow European Union countries. It is important that we work together
with them and get a sustainable fishing policy. We are moving in that
direction, and it is only through such a policy that we will guarantee
a secure future for our fishermen, both here and in the rest of
Europe.
Mr.
Williams:
If the discards are landed, from where can they
be sold? We do not want to encourage a market in undersize
fish.
Mr.
Bradshaw:
We are concerned about that issue. We do
not want to encourage a market in undersize fish. At the same time, we
think that the outputs of any discard strategy are much more important
than the way the strategy is managed. We will be seeking views on the
sort of markets that can be used to sell undersize
fish. Some undersize fish already goes into fish meal and the industrial
sector. We would be grateful for more
suggestions.
Mr.
Goodwill:
One selective fishing method that those
in the Faroe Isles have used to great effect is long-lining. Of course,
that has received quite a lot of bad press because of the rise in the
mortality rates of sea birds, particularly the albatross. Will the
Minister tell me how a big a problem this is, and if there are
technologies available to ensure that it is minimised? It would be
shame to lose this excellent type of technology because of
disproportionate publicity to the downside.
Mr.
Bradshaw:
I think that I am right in saying—my
officials will correct me if I am wrong—that we have agreed an
international protocol to protect the albatross from the potential
damages of long-lining. There are technical solutions to that issue;
but I cannot remember what they
are.
Mr.
Bradshaw:
Yes, some sort of weights that take the long
line deep enough so that the albatross are not diving down to pick up
the bait and getting caught on the hooks.
The hon. Member for Scarborough
and Whitby is absolutely right to say that, in general terms,
long-lining can be a sustainable fishery. It can obviate some of the
damage done by beam-trawling, for example, or using the kinds of trawl
that are dragged along the ocean bottom, or even using indiscriminate
netting, which can lead to by-catching of species such as dolphins and
porpoises.
Bill
Wiggin:
The Minister spoke about herring stocks being
diminished significantly. Until today, I thought that they were doing
extremely well. Does he have extra information, is it a new situation
or have I just got it
wrong?
Mr.
Bradshaw:
After the terrible collapse of the herring stock
back in the 1970s, when we were in control of our own fishery, the
herring industry in the North sea went almost into extinction. The
herring is a great success story of the past 20 years, but in the past
two years, it has declined again. There have been a couple of years of
very poor recruitment. Last year we had to cut the total allowable
catch for herring, and it looks as though the advice for this year will
be even more drastic. We might need to take quite serious decisions on
herring.
As you will
know, Mr. Hood, coming from the part of the world from which
you do, it is the nature of fish stocks that recruitment varies from
year to year. A lot of the science is not particularly well understood.
We have had weak recruitment to the herring stock for a number of
years, and that will probably mean a reduction of the TAC for next
year.
Mr.
Williams:
If there is any income from
the landing of discards, could that not be used to encourage investment
in and use of more selective gear? That would encourage more
sustainable types of fishery than we have at the
moment.
Mr.
Bradshaw:
That is absolutely right. One of the things that
we need to do a lot better—I hope that we can take the industry
with us—is to introduce more selective gear. I shall give the
hon. Gentleman one example. A Brixham beamer owned by Mr.
Mike Sharp has been using a combination of square-mesh cod ends and
several strategically placed square-meshed escape panels in the
trawler. Mr. Sharp has managed to cut his discards by 60 per
cent., the quality of the catch has improved and he has broken the top
landing record for Brixham while using that gear. We understand that
most other boat owners in Brixham now want to adopt the same technical
measures. It shows that sensibly introduced technical measures can have
a beneficial effect and can address the discard problem more
effectively than a blanket discard ban
would.
Bill
Wiggin:
When did the Commission decide to switch from
minimum landing sizes to a minimum marketing size based approach, and
does the Minister agree with
it?
Mr.
Bradshaw:
I understand that that change was in the latest
general policy
paper.
Bill
Wiggin:
What studies has the Department done to make
better use of low-value fish, and which measures to increase their
commercial value would the Minister like to see introduced into the UK
to reduce discarding?
Mr.
Bradshaw:
I am not aware that we have conducted any such
studies, but if I am wrong, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with
clarification.
Mr.
Williams:
Has the Minister estimated the number of
personnel who would be needed to monitor such an approach on vessels? I
understand that that is just about the only way that it could be
monitored.
Mr.
Bradshaw:
That is one of the reasons why we must be quite
cautious about the costs involved in an effective enforcement regime
for a discard ban. We will know more when we have had time to monitor
the success or otherwise of the Irish sea pilot, a fairly significant
pilot that we are about to undertake with the Irish Government. We will
then have a better idea whether the benefits warrant the
costs.
Bill
Wiggin:
The communication suggests that preferential
access to fisheries could be given to those with a track record of low
by-catches. Does the Minister support such a measure, and what impact
would it have on the UK’s mixed fisheries and
industry?
Mr.
Bradshaw:
I certainly think that the idea is worth careful
consideration. As I just pointed out, where
successful measures to reduce by-catch can be shown to work and
increase the income of the fishermen concerned, they are a no-brainer.
We would be interested to examine whether we could use incentives in
the system, or encourage the producer organisations themselves to use
them, to reduce
by-catch.
Bill
Wiggin:
If skippers are required to land all the catch,
what incentives and punishments will discourage them from discarding
illegally?
Mr.
Bradshaw:
We do not yet have any concrete ideas about
that, but one can imagine. Grants are available from EU funding for
more selective fishing gear. That is one example of a possible
incentive.
Bill
Wiggin:
It is proposed that temporary closures of some
areas might be used to reduce by-catch and discards. How does the
Minister envisage that that will fit in with the marine spatial plans
proposed in the Marine Bill White Paper, and can he guarantee that a
Marine Bill will be in the next Queen’s
Speech?
Mr.
Bradshaw:
As the hon. Gentleman will know, there are
already quite a lot of temporary closures in spawning grounds and other
areas to protect juvenile and young fish around our coasts. Clearly,
those would form part of any marine spatial plan introduced in a Marine
Bill. He will understand that I cannot give a guarantee about what will
be in the Queen’s Speech, but I hope and fully expect that the
Government will fulfil our manifesto commitment—devolved
Administrations allowing—by delivering a Marine Bill during this
Parliament.
Bill
Wiggin:
Under Council regulation 1543/2000, member states
are required to collect data on discarding. Why is the information not
compiled
systematically?
Mr.
Bradshaw:
It is compiled systematically by us. I
understand that the Commission is chasing up other member states that
have not yet supplied the
data.
Bill
Wiggin:
I am grateful for that reply. The Minister stated
in a written answer to me that the UK has been pressing the Commission
for a full set of relevant discard data from all member states. Which
countries have not provided the relevant data, and are any of them in
breach of EU
law?
Mr.
Bradshaw:
I am afraid I cannot give that list. If I can
find out the information, I shall, and will write to the hon. Gentleman
with
it.
Kelvin
Hopkins:
The last line of questioning suggests that we
cannot trust our European colleagues in such matters. We present the
statistics and monitor our own fishermen, but they do not, while
fishing in what were UK waters. Does that not bring us back to my first
question about how many fish are taken out of British waters and how
many discards are not even recorded by fishing boats from other EU
nations?
Mr.
Bradshaw:
I am afraid that it is a common myth among
Eurosceptics that we are the only people who play by the rules.
According to the audited figures for fisheries compliance throughout
the EU, we are in the middle. In fact, when Labour came to power, we
were rather near the bottom. We have improved since then, I am pleased
to say, and enforcement has improved considerably, particularly in
Scotland.
Because we
have driven illegality and so-called black fishing out of the system,
fish landings are more
valuable than they have ever been and fishermen are enjoying record
incomes. Enforcement and compliance are important. We are keen to see
them improve further in this country as well as others, as is the
Commission, but we are by no means the best performers, so we should
not be too
complacent.
Bill
Wiggin:
What measures specific to each fishery are being
drawn up to deal with by-catch, and is cetacean by-catch being
considered?
Mr.
Bradshaw:
We are extremely concerned about cetacean
by-catch. We are keen that the European Commission should introduce
further measures to prevent it, and we think that the extension of the
birds and habitats directive to 200 miles should help in that regard.
As we have already done, we are prepared to take unilateral measures
where we think that they are justified to protect cetaceans in our own
waters.
Bill
Wiggin:
The Commission’s 2002
community action plan to reduce discards and DEFRA’s 2005
“Securing the Benefits” promised discard pilot schemes.
Five years on, what progress has been made, and will the Irish sea
pilot begin in August as
promised?
Mr.
Bradshaw:
I hope that it will begin in
July.
Bill
Wiggin:
What discard pilot projects have been ongoing in
the EU since 2002? The community action plan proposed them. What data
have been collected, and what improved technical measures have
resulted?
Mr.
Bradshaw:
We have developed two discard pilot projects in
recent years, the first of which focused on improving selectivity in
the north-east coast prawn fishery. I have arranged for a report of
that project to be laid in the Library. It considered a series of gear
modifications based on the variable placement of square mesh panels
designed to allow non-target species to escape. They proved successful
in reducing by-catch, in particular of juveniles, and the industry is
being encouraged to adopt them more widely. The second pilot is the one
to which we have referred. We hope that it will be launched in the
Irish sea in
July.
Bill
Wiggin:
When does the Minister expect
the draft regulation containing firm proposals to be published? When
will he carry out his regulatory impact
assessment?
Mr.
Bradshaw:
I hope that the draft proposals will be
published, if not under the Portuguese presidency,
under the presidency after that. However, that will depend on whether
other member states are as keen as us to see progress made. When those
proposals are published, we shall be publishing our impact assessment
as we always
do.
Bill
Wiggin:
Do the Minister’s European counterparts
share his commitment to tackling by-catch and
discards?
Mr.
Bradshaw:
You have to ask them,
Mr. Hood. There was widespread support for the policy
document. I am not aware of a Minister from any member state speaking
against it. It went through on unanimity, which left me with the
impression that at least no
member state objects to it. However, whether they are quite as
enthusiastic about sustainable fisheries as we are, probably not. The
hon. Gentleman will know that, under my ministerial role in the
Department, Britain now has the reputation as being the greenest and
most progressive country in the whole of the European Union on the
marine environment and sustainable fisheries. I am very proud of that,
and we hope very much that other EU countries will follow our
lead.
Kelvin
Hopkins:
I am pleased about the answer that the Minister
has just given about our being the greenest country, but is not the
logical answer the fact that we have the longest coastline and the
biggest potential fisheries, and that the other European Union nations
are less concerned about such matters because they do not affect them
nationally in the way that they affect
us?
Mr.
Bradshaw:
Oh dear, Mr. Hood. I challenge my
hon. Friend to say what he has just said in front of the Spanish,
French or the Irish Parliament. He is absolutely right that we in the
United Kingdom have a strong interest in fisheries. We are a major
fisheries nation, but other nations have strong fisheries interests.
Nor would I disqualify those nations in the European Union, some of
them landlocked with no fishing industry, which share our concern about
the environmental health of our oceans. They have been useful to the
British cause in fighting for tougher measures to protect fish stocks
and, most recently at the International Whaling Commission where we
managed to regain our majority and where, mainly with the aid of some
EU friends—I do not know whether hon. Members are prepared to
call them friends—we agreed that we all have a role to play in
protecting the world’s
oceans.
Bill
Wiggin:
Why is the worldwide discard
rate estimated by the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United
Nations at 8 per cent., while the rate for some stocks in the United
Kingdom waters often exceeds 50 per cent. and, in Europe as a whole, 20
to 60 per
cent.?
Mr.
Bradshaw:
I do not know why the figure internationally
should be lower than that, but I suspect the reason for the relatively
high discard rate in European Union waters is the mixed nature of our
fishery. A lot of fisheries that are prosecuted in other parts of the
world tend to be single-species fisheries with fewer discard problems.
One of the reasons why we have such a mixed degree and thus such high
discards is that we are a rich fishing ground in the north-east
Atlantic with many migratory species. That makes it much more
difficult, as I said earlier, to discriminate between species when out
drawing a net or even a long
line.
Bill
Wiggin:
What level of discarding does the Minister think
can be prevented purely through technological measures and improved
selection of
gear?
Mr.
Bradshaw:
It depends, but a considerable amount, as I have
shown by the award-winning scheme in Brixham. In that case, it was 60
per cent. and it would be good if we could go even
higher.
Bill
Wiggin:
What discussions has the Minister had with Norway,
the Faroe Islands and Iceland on tackling
discards?
Mr.
Bradshaw:
I have had a number of discussions with my
Norwegian and Icelandic counterparts on the discard issue. I cannot
recall whether I have discussed it with my Faroese counterparts. I
probably did, but it was quite some time ago. Those discussions have
been very useful, but the fisheries of Iceland, the Faroe Islands and
Norway are very different from ours. They have similar challenges to
ours, but the discard bans in Iceland and Norway operate in different
ways and with differing degrees of success. It would not be right to
suggest that there is some simple solution from another country that
can be adopted. We are keen to learn from them and so those discussions
were very useful, but they do not necessarily point to a
solution.
Bill
Wiggin:
What discussions has the Minister, his European
counterparts or the Commission had with New Zealand regarding the use
of deemed value? They have an effective scheme in New Zealand, which
has reduced discards and could help to improve knowledge of our fish
stocks.
Mr.
Bradshaw:
I have had number of discussions about fisheries
with my New Zealand colleagues and visited there two years ago to
discuss fisheries, among other things. The hon. Gentleman will have to
forgive me as I cannot, from the recesses of my mind, remember what the
significance of deemed value is, but I will ensure that my officials
find out and give me a full briefing. However, the fishing industry in
New Zealand is very different to ours and there is not such a mixed
fishery. The north Atlantic fishery is unique in its complexity and
variety of species. That is a challenge that we face, whether we are in
or out of the common fisheries
policy.
The
Chairman:
My customary generosity allowed the question on
New Zealand, which treaded away from the European Union a wee
bit.
Bill
Wiggin:
I am grateful for your generosity, Mr.
Hood, but I brought New Zealand up because it has one of the successful
discard schemes.
What
progress is being made at European level to establish a discard atlas?
Are all European countries providing as much information on discards as
the Minister would
like?
Mr.
Bradshaw:
I am not aware of what progress is being made on
a discard atlas, if any, but I accept the premise of the question. It
is very important that we know where the problem is, where it is worst
and where the most can be gained from trying to combat it through the
action plan. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the level of discards
depends on not just the geographical area, but the type of fishery. It
is much higher in the beam trawl fishery than the demersal trawl. In
some fisheries it is very low indeed. We already know a fair amount
about it, but we do not know enough about the best way of combating
it.
Bill
Wiggin:
Does the Minister believe that
the measures forthcoming from the communication will be in place to
significantly reduce by-catch and discarding to ensure that
Europe’s fisheries are abiding by the maximum sustainable yield
principle and the Johannesburg 2015
targets?
Mr.
Bradshaw:
That is part of the process, but the maximum
sustainable yield principle can be pursued regardless of what happens
on the discard action
plan.
Motion made,
and Question
proposed,
That
the Committee takes note of European Union Document No. 8179/07 and
addenda 1-2, Commission Communication, A policy to reduce unwanted
by-catches and eliminate discards in European fisheries; and agrees
with the Government’s initial assessment of the proposal that it
represents a sound basis for debate, but that the discussion of
possible solutions needs to take full account of the mixed nature of
many of the EU fisheries and balance the socio-economic interests
involved, whilst the UK are mindful of the importance of effective
enforcement and control and the resource implications
thereof.—[Mr.
Bradshaw.]
5.9
pm
Bill
Wiggin:
Tackling by-catch and discards is one of the
biggest challenges facing our fishermen and the marine environment. The
Conservatives want to see an end to the unsustainable management
policies and practices that perpetuate the loss of 880,000 tonnes in
the North sea alone. In no other industry could so much natural
resource be woefully wasted in such an inefficient and controversial
manner. By the estimates of the Department for Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs, it is not uncommon for discard rates of certain
fisheries to exceed 50 per
cent.
The rates that
the Minister has given for 2006 highlight the urgency of the situation.
By the end of that year, almost as much cod was discarded as was
caught. In the first quarter, the discard rate for North sea cod was
7.9 per cent. By the fourth quarter, it had grown to 43.8 per cent. In
the third quarter, the rate for North sea haddock was 66.2 per cent. In
the same period, west of Scotland whiting reached a staggering discard
rate of 83.5 per cent.; 246.3 tonnes was discarded, while only 48.6
tonnes was landed. Fisheries cannot be sustainable when discard levels
are that high.
Cod
stocks in both the North sea and the west of Scotland are described as
being outside safe biological limits, but estimated discard rates at
both of those fisheries stood at between 37 and 70 per cent. during the
third and fourth quarters of 2006. In addition to the impact on fish
stocks, the by-catch of species such as dolphins, porpoises and other
cetaceans damages the environment. That is not mentioned in the
communication, but should be considered as proposals are taken
forward.
Five years
ago, we were promised progress on discards along with the package of
common fisheries policy reforms. The 2002 community action plan made a
range of proposals to reduce discards in European waters including
pilot projects to reduce discards, consultations on the implications of
a discard ban, policies to deal with total allowable catch and
quota-induced discards and a legal ban on discards from 2006. Those
sentiments were well thought out, but there has since been little
delivery. By the Minister’s own admission in his answer to a
written question from me:
“There hasn’t been
the detailed analysis at Community level of the
various options identified in the report that was
anticipated.”—[Official Report, 15 June 2007; Vol.
461, c. 1365W.]
So, how can we
be certain that the measures in the communication will fare any better
or that they will materialise into proposals, in the near future, that
are both practical and acceptable to stakeholders? The current
proposals have been welcomed, but so was the seemingly shelved 2002
community action plan. Taking forward and implementing the proposals
will be the true test of Europe’s political will finally to
tackle discards and to establish sustainable European fisheries that
are fit for the 21st century.
It is not only the European
Union that has been failing on its commitments to reduce discards:
DEFRA has not exactly moved at light speed. In its 2006-07 marine and
fisheries business plan, it promised that the environmental impact of
fishing would be minimised through the tackling of discards, but that
has yet to happen. “Securing the Benefits” promised
discard pilots to help
us
“better understand the
factors that lead to discarding and how they might be
tackled”,
but the Irish
sea discard pilot, arrangements for which were supposed to be finalised
by last December, is not even scheduled to begin until the end of July.
Further, the conclusions and modelling of the potential benefits of
possible solutions from the North sea nephrops pilot are still being
peer reviewed and a paper is not expected for another year.
Moreover, the long-awaited
Marine Bill is still only at the White Paper stage, with no hint of
when it is likely to be formally introduced. Although fisheries seem
set to be excluded from future legislation, in order to understand more
about our seas, marine spatial planning and protected and closed areas,
a Marine Bill could have a role to play in reducing by-catch and
discards. If the right policies are to be made to deal with by-catch
and discard, the science and knowledge base on which decision-makers
rely must be improved. Of the 47 finfish stocks that are of most
interest to the UK, only 12 are classed as being within safe biological
limits. Thirteen are outside those limits, while safe biological limits
have not been defined for six of them and there has been no scientific
assessment of 16 of them. That situation must be improved. I hope that
the communication will provide an opportunity for full and
comprehensive scientific assessments to be undertaken to understand the
nature of our marine life so that it can be managed in a sustainable
way.
In 2004, the
Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution suggested that a mandatory,
full reporting scheme should be introduced. In mixed fisheries such as
the North sea, a strong knowledge base is especially important, because
technological measures alone and changes to gear might not be enough to
prevent by-catch. The use of more selective gears, mesh sizes,
bottom-set gillnets and escape panels can reduce by-catch, but they
must be complemented by a management and quota system that rewards good
practice. That is the key to success: by using more selective gear, the
opportunity to catch the wrong species is reduced. That might be the
right area on which to concentrate. Implementing suggestions such as
giving loans to fishermen to help fund their replacement gear might be
an effective way to speed up the process.
Stephen
Pound (Ealing, North) (Lab): I was
interested in what the hon. Gentleman said about escape panels. Does he
think that any particular difficulties arise as a result of varying sea
pressures and depths in relation to escape panels? He knows a great
deal about the divergence in size of trawlers. Could that apply across
the board, or is it specific to a species or
area?
Bill
Wiggin:
The hon. Gentleman makes a good stab at sounding
knowledgeable about that, but the problem with escape panels is not
that people are not using them, but the depths at which they are used.
It is not to do with depths, but with the cost of the gear, which is
why—I am sure that he will agree with me—it is important
that the Department is creative and innovative in helping fisherman.
Whatever depth they choose to fish at, it should get them to invest in
the type of gear that will be effective at reducing the unwanted catch.
I am delighted to have taken that intervention and if he wants to have
another go on the subject of depths, I shall be even more
thrilled.
We know that
by themselves blanket bans on by-catch will not prevent discards, and
the Minister must ensure that in his discussions with the Commission he
makes it clear how damaging that would be to the UK industry and to the
environment. If a requirement is introduced to land everything that is
caught, sufficient incentives must be in place to reward fishermen to
land their entire catch rather than discard
illegally.
In the
absence of enforcement officers on board every vessel, there would be
little point in expecting fishermen to land all their catch and then
hand it over for nothing in return, when they have experienced handling
costs and forgone income to land it. As well as the minimum marketing
size, the Minister should ensure that serious consideration is given to
improved quota flexibility and the “by-catch bank” model
operated by Iceland to safeguard the incomes of fishermen. That means
that the money received from the sale of unwanted fish is used to pay
fishermen a long-term stable price for those
fish.
No one wants an
end to discarding more than people in the fishing industry, with whom
it is essential that the Minister works closely. They may be hit the
hardest by what the Commission staff working document describes as the
significant additional short-term costs that would come with a discard
ban.
As with previous
proposals in the past few years, this communication is promising, but
we need to turn those promises into practical policies. Our fishing
industry and the environment do not need another discussion on an
ambiguous set of proposals—however well-meaning—instead
they need action and coherent policies that can be built upon. I
therefore welcome the motion and the Minister’s comments that
more needs to be known about the issue, particularly about costs,
enforcement, the implementation of the discard ban, the mixed nature of
UK fisheries, and the measures that must be adopted to prevent illegal
discarding. It would be helpful if the Minister kept the House and the
fishing industry regularly updated and notified of what progress he
makes with the proposals. I also hope that the Minister presses forward
and encourages his European counterparts to put the tackling of
by-catch and discards at the top of the European agenda. This
communication must not be yet another false
start.
5.17
pm
Kelvin
Hopkins:
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the
debate because I am not an appointed member of the Committee, and I
will therefore obviously not participate in any vote. However, it is
right that someone raises the concerns of many hon. Members about the
common fisheries policy in general, of which this is a
sub-problem.
The
common fisheries policy was established a long time ago and we joined
it almost as an after-thought when we signed up to the membership of
the then European Community. However, joining the common fisheries
policy need not have happened. The rest of Europe was so keen for us to
join that they would have accepted us not joining; but, we did and it
was a great mistake. A number of hon. Members have raised that point on
many occasions.
In
recent months, demonstrations from fishermen who are concerned about
the common fisheries policy have taken place by the Thames. I
profoundly believe that those most qualified for and effective at
policing fisheries are those nation states where the waters exist. If
there were no common fisheries policy and national waters were
defended, we would have the biggest fisheries in the European Union.
That would be of tremendous benefit to our economy. Not just
nationally, but in terms of fish stock for everyone, if each country
had the responsibility to defend its own fish stocks and national
waters, it is obvious that fish stocks would not be as depleted as they
have been and we would not have had such
problems.
In future, I
hope that the Government will consider the possibility of substantial
reform of the CFP so that it reverts to much larger national waters and
defended areas for each nation state. I think that, had it not been for
the CFP, our fishing industry would now be rather larger, because we
would have much greater national fisheries. It is also highly likely
that we would not have had the depletion of stocks that we have
had.
With regard to
policing, this is pure speculation on my part, but I am deeply
suspicious that foreign boats coming to what are in effect British
waters—
The
Chairman:
Order. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s
interest in coming along to the European Standing Committee today and
his participation in it, but it would be helpful to the Chair if he
spoke to the motion that we are debating, which is on
discards.
Kelvin
Hopkins:
Thank you, Mr. Hood; the very next
word on my piece of paper is “discards”. Discards and
by-catches are best policed by the countries where the fishing
industries are based. It is very difficult for Britain to police
by-catches and discards from Spanish trawlers, French trawlers or
whatever. I am also concerned that by-catches may not be being
discarded. They may be landed secretly and sold off for fishmeal or
whatever. That is at least a
possibility.
Bill
Wiggin:
The hon. Gentleman is making a
very important point about policing illegal discarding, which we hope
will indeed be illegal. I should like him to tell me how he thinks that
we should solve this difficulty. How does the Royal Navy carry out the
task of, or does
he even think that we should take responsibility for, arresting or
stopping a foreign fisherman in our waters illegally
discarding?
Kelvin
Hopkins:
The hon. Gentleman raises a very important and
difficult point. It is very easy to police fishing boats coming back to
British ports; it is very difficult to police foreign boats at sea
using the Royal
Navy.
I will finish on
this point. I was one of those who had great sympathy for Iceland over
the cod war. Iceland has a very small economy: it is about the size of
that of Bedfordshire, where I live and part of which I represent.
Iceland has used its small gunboats to try to stop its fisheries being
plundered by foreign boats. It was clearly heavily dependent on its
fishing industry. We are a much bigger economy and much stronger, but
we would do well to look after our own fishing stocks rather better
than we have done in the past. To do that, we need substantial reform
of the CFP and a return to very much larger national
waters.
5.22
pm
Mr.
Williams:
I welcome the tone of the motion before the
Committee and I support any proposals that will cut by-catches and
discards. Nothing brings the common fisheries policy into greater
disrepute in the eyes of the public than the fact that more than
800,000 tonnes of fish are discarded in the course of fishing to feed
the nation. The public find that very hard to understand. Indeed, at an
event on Saturday involving the Radnorshire Wildlife Trust, I was asked
to sign a
petition to ensure that the Marine Bill is introduced in the
Queen’s Speech—a red fish with many gold signatures will
land on the Minister’s desk shortly. That organisation said that
discards were one of its key
concerns.
I urge the
Minister to ensure that enough research is done, particularly in our
mixed fisheries in the North sea, which are difficult to fish. Research
is needed in relation to more selective gear and other technical
matters that will cut discards, but certainly Liberal Democrat Members
support the motion and urge the Minister to be very active in pursuing
the suggestions that have been
made.
5.24
pm
Mr.
Bradshaw:
I thank hon. Members for their very constructive
contributions this afternoon. I can reassure the hon. Member for
Leominster that we will keep hon. Members informed as these proposals
develop. We will also bear in mind the comments made here today and
take those into
account.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Resolved,
That
the Committee takes note of European Union Document
No. 8179/07 and addenda 1-2, Commission Communication, A policy to
reduce unwanted by-catches and eliminate discards in European
fisheries; and agrees with the Government’s initial assessment
of the proposal that it represents a sound basis for debate, but that
the discussion of possible solutions needs to take full account of the
mixed nature of many of the EU fisheries and balance the socio-economic
interests involved, whilst the UK are mindful of the importance of
effective enforcement and control and the resource implications
thereof.
Committee
rose at twenty-four minutes past Five
o’clock.
