UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 274-i

House of COMMONS

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

TAKEN BEFORE

european scrutiny committee

 

 

fisheries

 

 

Wednesday 24 January 2007

MR BEN BRADSHAW MP, MR SIMON WATERFIELD and MS FIONA WALTERS

Evidence heard in Public Questions 1 - 30

 

 

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

1.

This is an uncorrected transcript of evidence taken in public and reported to the House. The transcript has been placed on the internet on the authority of the Committee, and copies have been made available by the Vote Office for the use of Members and others.

 

2.

Any public use of, or reference to, the contents should make clear that neither witnesses nor Members have had the opportunity to correct the record. The transcript is not yet an approved formal record of these proceedings.

 

3.

Members who receive this for the purpose of correcting questions addressed by them to witnesses are asked to send corrections to the Committee Assistant.

 

4.

Prospective witnesses may receive this in preparation for any written or oral evidence they may in due course give to the Committee.


Oral Evidence

Taken before the European Scrutiny Committee

on Wednesday 24 January 2007

Members present

Michael Connarty, in the Chair

Mr David S Borrow

Mr William Cash

Jim Dobbin

Mr David Heathcoat-Amory

Angus Robertson

Richard Younger-Ross

________________

Witnesses: Mr Ben Bradshaw, a Member of the House, Minister of State, Mr Simon Waterfield, Head of Common Fisheries Policy Management Team, and Ms Fiona Walters, Scrutiny Co-ordinator, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, gave evidence.

Q1 Chairman: Good afternoon. Welcome, Minister. You might want to introduce your team before we start and, if you do not mind, then we will just go straight into questioning?

Mr Bradshaw: Thank you very much, Chairman. Simon Waterfield, on my right, is from our Fisheries Division and Fiona Walters, on my left, is from our Parliamentary Division and we are at your service.

Q2 Chairman: The first topic we want to deal with and the one which originally the Committee suggested we call you in for is the problem of ministerial overrides of scrutiny reserves. The most recent information we have from the Prime Minister's EU Adviser, who supplied the statistics, was that Defra has a higher proportion of scrutiny overrides than any other comparable department. Also fisheries has been a particular problem area, it is sensitive for a number of members of this Committee, including one instance where a debate recommendation was outstanding when a decision was agreed to by yourself, I think. Can you explain why this should be so in Defra and how you, or your team, intend to improve matters?

Mr Bradshaw: I can tell you, Chairman, that I think, since those figures were considered and which were for the first six months of the year, it is no longer the case that Defra is the worst government department and certainly we regret any instance in which we have to override scrutiny. I have prepared for the benefit of your Committee a useful table, which with your indulgence I am happy to pass round to your members, which lists every example of override which happened over 2006 and gives a brief reason for it, which I am happy to go into in more detail. It may also be helpful for your Committee to be aware that we submitted about 170 Explanatory Memoranda in 2006, of which approximately 108 were legislative proposals, and during 2006 we used the parliamentary scrutiny override seven times in the Commons and eight times in the Lords. Five of the overrides in the Commons were on fisheries proposals and three of the overrides in the Lords were on fisheries proposals. If you compare that with 2005, when a similar number of EM were submitted, Defra Ministers used the parliamentary scrutiny override 16 times, so more than twice as many times in 2005 as 2006, in the Commons, and 14 times in the Lords; four of those were related to fisheries and two in the Lords were related to fisheries. I appreciate that Committees are naturally unhappy when overrides happen, but the record for 2006 is a considerable improvement on 2005. The reasons for overrides, which I think we have communicated on before, basically are three-fold. One is that we send you an EM, to which then you have further questions, which then we have to go back either to the Commission or to the devolves or to other government departments, to try to get answers or clarification on, and that does not always arrive in time. Another issue is parliamentary recesses; if a document arrives in a parliamentary recess, that can mean sometimes that you do not get the opportunity to scrutinise it in time. In a small number of cases, particularly on Defra issues which are not only issues of general EU competence but also issues of devolved subjects, on fisheries and agriculture and environment, we need to work closely and sometimes it takes some time to reach an agreed position not only with other government departments but also with the devolved administrations. That is a brief summary of why unfortunately it has been necessary in that small number of cases to have a scrutiny override.

Chairman: If you do not mind me saying so, you are a former member of the Committee, you know how the Committee works and when the Committee decides that something has to be debated it is clear that we are saying that, any debates we have, every Member of Parliament has a right to attend. We are given that responsibility, therefore, because we think of the seriousness of the subject to the whole of Parliament, and to take a decision when that debate is outstanding is not something that many ministers would choose to do; in fact, all the time I have been on this Committee, which is eight years, it is a matter which happens only very, very infrequently. It says something not just about your priorities vis-ŕ-vis this Committee but the whole Parliament, and that I think is what the concern is at the end and causes this to happen. Though it is getting better, I think it has to be very important for ministries and ministers to be able to say to their colleagues "There is an outstanding parliamentary debate on this issue and therefore I cannot override the scrutiny reserve." Having done so, obviously, we would not wish to see it happen again. Mr Robertson, you wanted to come in.

Q3 Angus Robertson: Welcome, Minister, to the Committee. I want to ask a very specific question about Council of Ministers proceedings, because usually you are accompanied by the Scottish Executive Minister for Rural Affairs. You may be aware that this week saw the publication of a report by a former senior UKRep official, now Head of the Scottish Executive Office in Brussels, Mr Aron. He writes: "UK Ministers take the lead in negotiating on behalf of the UK whilst Executive Ministers simply watch proceedings from the sidelines. Unfortunate examples are where there is no seat for the Minister in the Council room during the meeting so they have to follow discussions from the salle d'écoute alongside officials." If you do not know the answer to the question, could you ask your advisers to help you with this, because I am certain that this will become a matter of public record. Has this ever occurred to the Scottish Executive Minister for Rural Affairs?

Mr Bradshaw: It did not occur at all in 2006. Sometimes it occurs when, for example, in the end game of the fisheries negotiations, to reach agreement on a very difficult dossier, the room is emptied of everybody except one minister for each country, so no officials and nobody else. That has happened only once in my four years' experience. I suggest you put the same question to my colleague, Mr Finnie, because we work extremely closely, and I do not recognise accuracy at all in those comments that you have just quoted, Mr Robertson, of how we work together with our devolved colleagues during fisheries negotiations. Mr Finnie and I work extremely closely together. He is always in the room unless, as I say, the room goes down to one minister per country, and that has happened only once.

Q4 Angus Robertson: To clarify this, you are confirming that there has been a case where Ross Finnie, the Scottish Executive Minister for Fisheries, has had to follow proceedings from the salle d'écoute; this is the Minister in question?

Mr Bradshaw: If my recollection is correct, there has been one instance, in all of the Council negotiations that I have been involved in, where each country's delegation has been reduced to a single minister. That has required the Minister for Northern Ireland, the Minister in Scotland, the officials from Wales and any other devolved ministers from other EU countries also to leave the main negotiating area. That is the nature sometimes of negotiations, that negotiations come down to one person, one on one; so that situation is avoidable but, as I say, it has happened once.

Angus Robertson: That is a 'yes'?

Chairman: I think it is a clarification, it is a detail and I would say that was much more than a 'yes'. I think it was a very good explanation.

Q5 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: Returning to the general issue of the scrutiny overrides, the performance of your Department actually is lamentable and it completely contradicts the assurances we are always given by ministers actually to involve national parliaments better. Can I draw your attention to the Amsterdam Treaty Protocol; this Protocol was designed, and I quote: "to encourage greater involvement of national parliaments in the activities of the European Union and to enhance their ability to express their views on matters which may be of particular interest to them." The same Protocol, which is now part of Community law, requires documents to be made available in good time and actually mentions a six-week minimum time period between a proposal being available to ministers and it being put on the agenda of a Council meeting. Is it that the European Union institutions, the Commission, and so on, are breaking this Protocol, or is it incompetence in your Department not to give us the adequate time to debate these matters before you take the decisions: which is it?

Mr Bradshaw: My colleague, Fiona, will correct me if I am wrong. I think I am right in saying that of the examples which are in front of you here, of the overrides from 2006, there was only one where the reason for the override was the Commission breaking the six-week rule, and that was a relatively minor one. I will be quite honest with you, Mr Connarty, we always face a judgment, as a Department, as to whether an issue is serious enough, or we consider it serious enough, to expend capital and negotiating capital with the Commission and other Member States by holding it up until the next Council, which we would be perfectly entitled to do, and we do on some occasions, or whether we allow that one through. For the most serious, the reasons for override, in the cases certainly that we are discussing from last year, were either the fact that there were problems with recess or proroguing of Parliament intervening, or that the discussions within Government to reach an agreed position on an issue, such as the EU-Morocco Fisheries Agreement, or discussions with the devolved administrations, in this case Scotland, such as the Deep Sea Fish Species Agreement, were not resolved in time for the timetable of your Committee to enable that proposal to be scrutinised.

Q6 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: Chairman, I am sorry, I do not think that is adequate. You have agreed that on one occasion the Commission broke the Protocol; is this Treaty law, negotiated and signed by the Prime Minister? You are telling us that they broke the law and you did nothing about it; so what weight do we put on all these assurances about the involvement of national parliaments? They are completely worthless, if our own ministers, in our own departments, do not object, and there is no indication that you did even object. Can you give us, in future, an assurance that when they break their own law you will refuse to agree to matters and it will be brought to the attention of this Committee?

Mr Bradshaw: I think it would be wrong to describe it as a strict law, Chairman.

Q7 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: It is a Protocol; it is part of the Treaty?

Mr Bradshaw: Yes, exactly; and certainly, if we felt that the subject was worthy of objecting to, we would do so. As I say, the only one, with the exception of the December Council, on quotas regulation, which I think the Committee acknowledges is a special case and always has been, given the timetable of the Fisheries Council, the scientific advice and the Commission's proposals, was, I think it was, the oil-seed rape one, the persistent organic pollutants issue. That was one where we felt no other Member State was objecting to it coming to that Council, and sometimes we have to strike a balance as to whether we think an issue is worth objecting to, or whether, on balance, it is not controversial, no other Member State is going to object to it in its substance, so our kicking up a fuss, if you like, is not going to achieve anything and would expend goodwill and negotiating capital with other Member States and with the Commission.

Q8 Mr Cash: Minister, as a former co-member of this Committee, what the Chairman said at the beginning is important, because we know that you know exactly how all these things operate. You have heard us, and you have taken part in proceedings in the past regarding fisheries questions when you were sitting in the position as a member of the Committee. It is a question not just of timing, or recess, or consensus, it is substantive issues, and the bottom line is that some are more important than others, and I think it would be foolish for anyone to take a position on the override when the Minister could explain afterwards, unless it was a matter of importance. What worries a lot of us is simply that we know you know what the ball-game is, so when there is fiddling, or manoeuvring, or deliberate readjustment of timetables from within the system, you know what is going on. For example, to take an instance of the Council Regulation establishing EC Financial Measures for the Implementation of Fisheries Policy, both Committees, so it is not just the Commons, it is the Lords as well, are considering the matter. It says, I think disingenuously, "These issues did not become clearer until late in the negotiations and there was insufficient time for the Committees to consider this information." Quite bluntly, I do not buy that. You know what is going on, your officials know what is going on, it is a tricky question, and, to put it bluntly, in my opinion, it is organising timetables in a way which does not give the parliamentarians in the House of Commons who are going to consider these matters in Standing Committee, which includes all those Members other than us and including us, the opportunity to ask questions. I think that demonstrates a failure at the heart of Government, which is to give due regard to Westminster and too much regard to what is convenient for the purposes of the European Commission at the expense of, in this case, British fishermen. What is your comment on that?

Mr Bradshaw: I think you have chosen to a very helpful example, if I may say so, Mr Cash, and indeed you could have chosen the one below it, on the European Fisheries Fund. You are right, these are both issues which have been around for a long time, and, in fact, I must have done certainly more than one scrutiny debate on the European Fisheries Fund. The reason these are good examples that you have chosen is that often when negotiations, the end-game of negotiations, if you like, revolve around money, and the European Union Member States, as a group, are deciding on how much or how big a fund should be, or how much should be expended, those decisions really are made in the end-game of negotiation, involving the ministers at the Council meeting. I do not think it would be fair to suggest that we had not kept the Committee informed of the progress of those negotiations, which, as I say, had been going on not for months but for years, and the UK Government position on them had not changed, our position had been consistent all the way through. Really at every turn of the debate, if you like, if we were not communicating then scrutiny debates were being held and I was being held to account not just by members of this Committee, but any Member, as Mr Connarty reflected earlier, is entitled to attend. Sometimes we cannot be certain ourselves. You may think that we know what is going on, or our officials know what is going on, or what other governments' positions are, but, as somebody who is a very experienced politician, I am sure you will appreciate that negotiation often can be about not revealing your full hand until the last minute, particularly when you are talking about establishing building coalitions, blocking minorities, qualified majorities, and so forth.

Q9 Chairman: One final question lies unanswered, I think. You have made your excuses. I am not sure that the Committee is in a position to assess whether those excuses are valid reasons or not, and I am sure when our officials read the script they will go and check to see whether, in fact, in all of these situations, as you say, the UK position had not changed and, yes, there was nothing to report which was different. I am sure the officials will do that assessment. How do you intend to improve matters? It is not good enough to say it was a very bad year last year and it has been just a little bad year this year. Statistically, you are still worse than any other department of a comparable size.

Mr Bradshaw: I think you will find we are not, Chairman, when the figures for 2006 are finally published; you are correct in saying, I think, for the first half of the year we were. That is to do partly with the fact that so many long-standing fisheries items, rather like London buses, all came along at once. As I said, we have improved dramatically since 2005. We have more than halved the number of scrutiny overrides, partly as a result of the efforts which have been put in by Defra staff; we will continue to try to improve. We will consider certainly the suggestion that Mr Heathcoat-Amory has made, about whether we should be less reluctant to insist on the six-week rule, but as I indicated, quite fully, I think, in my response to him, these things are always a balance, that in the end one has to make a judgment as to where one thinks the United Kingdom's best interests lie. I hope that, if you ask to see me in a year's time, in front of your Committee again, we will be able to show further improvement.

Q10 Chairman: Thank you. We will move on to our second topic, on which we informed you we would take evidence. I first wrote to Lord Rooker on 25 October about making a link between whaling and the proposed concessions between the Community and Iceland, and you and I have exchanged a number of letters on this matter since. In your latest letter, of 11 January, which we have before us, you drew attention to Iceland's request to extend these tariff concessions to include whale meat, breaching the International Convention on Whaling not only by recommencing whaling but also by wanting to sell it in the EU. What is the latest position on this issue?

Mr Bradshaw: The latest position, I am pleased to inform the Committee, is that, thanks to an eagle-eyed Defra official, who spotted the inclusion of whale meat in this trade agreement, we raised our concerns, and I would like to thank the Committee as well for raising this as an issue with me and with your fellow committees in the European Union; the Commission had not spotted this. When it was drawn to their attention, they were as concerned as we were about it and they have successfully persuaded Iceland to withdraw any reference to whale meat from this agreement, in the last few days. We are grateful to you for your input and we are very pleased with the outcome.

Q11 Mr Borrow: Minister, on the broader issue of trade preferences, I think in an earlier letter to us, at the back end of last year, you said that you did not see the issue of trade preferences being one which should be used directly in terms of Iceland's policy on whaling. The Committee are somewhat puzzled as to why that should be the position of Defra?

Mr Bradshaw: I can understand the Committee's puzzlement, Chairman, and I raised exactly the same questions, because I do not think anybody can be left in any doubt of the UK's very strong anti-whaling position. We were in the forefront of international diplomatic protests against Iceland when it resumed that commercial whaling, in disregard of the international moratorium. We led an international demarche. I summoned the Icelandic Ambassador. The Committee may be interested to know that there has been a sea change in media opinion in Iceland since the resumption of commercial whaling. The main Icelandic newspaper, which used to be fairly supportive of the Government's position on whaling, is now highly critical. The Government itself is divided. There is quite a heated debate in Iceland, sparked partly by the international protests which we led. When I asked the question "Is there any more we can do?" thinking, in this respect, of the trade preference, the very strong advice, from our lawyers, other government departments, DTI and FCO, was that not only would it be not sensible but also not legal to try to block a trade agreement because one disagreed with an aspect of a country's domestic policy. It is also worth pointing out to the Committee, I think, that Iceland has a significant trade deficit with the European Union so we benefit from the liberalisation of trade with Iceland. As I say, when we spotted this rather surprising and bizarre inclusion of whale meat in the list of items that they wanted included in the agreement, which would have been illegal under international law, it is illegal to trade whale meat under IC's law, thankfully we spotted it. It would have been very embarrassing if we had not and if it had gone through and we had signed up to such an agreement, so I am extremely thankful to the eagle-eyed official in my Department who spotted it, who has done not only this country but the EU a great service.

Q12 Chairman: I think we would all echo that. Our original concern obviously was on whaling and we still have that concern. The point made by Mr Borrow, you chose to write back and say that an Environmental Council would be raising bottom trawling as the main point of interest. It did seem to us at that time - I know that legally, as you said, we could not do anything to stop them - that the idea of just putting it to the side for some other issue did strike us as being not appropriate, given I think we have reflected probably Parliament's very, very strong majority feeling that we should do everything possible to stop whaling by Iceland or any other country. Why did you choose that other item rather than choosing to keep the whaling issue on the agenda at the Environment Council?

Mr Bradshaw: I do not think one should belittle the importance, in environmental terms, of destructive bottom trawling, Chairman, but actually we raised both. We raised whaling and bottom trawling at separate Councils when they were the most topical issue, and indeed we got very strong support in the Environment Council when we raised the issue of whaling, although I am afraid that a stronger declaration by the Commission was objected to by Denmark. Both issues are very important. The only other important matter I think I ought to draw to your attention is that there is a difference between whaling and bottom trawling, in that whaling is not an EU competence whereas international fisheries is, so there is a slight legalistic difference there as well.

Q13 Angus Robertson: We are all aware that Icelanders are fierce defenders of their national interest, having won the cod war, for example. What do you think are the reasons behind their change of heart on this issue which was raised, about the inclusion of whale meat and their withdrawal?

Mr Bradshaw: I am afraid I do not have any information on that, Chairman, and probably it is a question which is best put to the Icelandic Ambassador or to the Icelandic Government in a letter. I do not know, for example, when this was drawn to their attention, whether there was any embarrassment, or even what their motives were of putting it on the list. What I do know is that when we raised it the Commission were also very concerned about it, they raised it with Iceland and Iceland agreed to withdraw it.

Q14 Mr Cash: In the context of your explanation of the spotting by this official and our having raised it and the question of illegality, there is a very important underlying question here, I think you will agree, which is, there are circumstances in which national interest can prevail, and we know what the Icelandic people want most on the whaling issue. Do you agree that it is feasible, and sometimes desirable, to override the requirements of Section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 in the national interests of the United Kingdom and/or, for that matter, any other country, in pursuit of their national interest, because there are circumstances which lead sometimes to disputes with this Committee or with Parliament as a whole? In principle, do you refute the suggestion that we could override Regulations and/or Directives in our own national interest?

Mr Bradshaw: I am sure there are circumstances when we might consider doing so, Chairman, but I am not such an avid student of the various bits of European law to which the Honourable Member refers. Perhaps he could explain what Section 2, of whatever it was he was referring to, actually is.

Mr Cash: Basically, it is that we accept treaties and obligations which arise under the European Communities Act 1972 which have been agreed in the Council of Ministers and through treaties. There are circumstances where, for example, it is clear that, short of arriving at a consensus, there is an option and that is to say, "No, we're not going to agree to this law."

Q15 Chairman: Mr Cash, it is an interesting idea. I do not think really it is for this Minister to answer.

Mr Bradshaw: I will try to answer it, if you like, Chairman. I genuinely believe that if one signs up to treaties one adheres to them.

Chairman: I think we will move on from that. We wish to move now to measures agreed by the Council on total allowable catches, if you will, Minister; but still on whaling, if you wish, Mr Heathcoat-Amory.

Q16 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: If I may, I would like to commend the Minister for the successful outcome to this particular spat over whale meat. I certainly believe that we should not allow trade liberalisation to get too contaminated by what essentially is a separate issue, particularly when it is illegal anyway, to import the meat; so I think that is good. Can I widen it slightly and suggest to the Minister that we have got a lot to learn from Iceland over fisheries conservation. I have been there numerous times and I am impressed by their rivers and the way they conserve their stocks. Is there a danger that the whaling issue could come back to be an impediment to what should be a very friendly interchange of information and practical conservation measures between Iceland, the Government there, and ourselves? Can I encourage you to build on this, and watch trade liberalisation but get together on marine conservation issues?

Mr Bradshaw: Yes, and I agree entirely with Mr Heathcoat-Amory, Chairman. He is absolutely right, that although we have very, very strong and serious differences with Iceland over whaling we co-operate very well on a whole range of issues. The Icelanders own significant parts of our economy, in retail, Hamley's and some of our favourite stores are in the hands of Icelanders, and we do learn and will continue to learn from their fisheries policies. We are in the process of reviewing our quota management regime, which you may be aware of, and I have also visited Iceland on a number of occasions and am very keen to learn from the best practice wherever we can find it internationally, including from Iceland.

Q17 Chairman: Sometimes I think, Minister, that it is always after the event hindsight is a wonderful thing. In fact, I do think it was a Conservative Government which gave sole competence to the EU over our fisheries, which I think causes as much concern among Scottish Labour Members as any other party, as we know. As you say, when we sign treaties then we live by them, and often that is the problem, that we have signed the treaty regardless of the Government's political persuasion at the time. Can I move on to total allowable catches. When I was reading Sir Malcolm Rifkind today, in the House Magazine, I thought that was very interesting. On total allowable catches, Minister, if we can start with the way in which the Community agrees total allowable catches each year, this has long been a source of concern, as you know, because of its effect on parliamentary scrutiny. You have referred in your previous answers to the speed with which decisions come to the fore. We note that there has been an improvement in the case of deep-sea stocks and those in the Baltic, but not yet for the main stocks of interest to the UK. It does seem there is progress in the timescales for one sector but not for us. Is there a likelihood of this happening, that is, an earlier discussion and conclusion, which would allow us to participate in scrutiny, in the next year's round, for example, in the stocks available and of interest to the UK?

Mr Bradshaw: Chairman, we are always looking at opportunities to increase front-loading, which is this horrible term which we use to express bringing forward recommendations earlier. The difficulty with any of the species, if not all of the species, which are of main interest to the UK, is that also we want to make the judgment based on the latest available scientific advice on the spawning mass, and clearly that depends on the spawning season. Probably it is not possible for most of the stocks in which the UK has an interest to have the scientific advice for that year any earlier than currently is the case, and that does present us, as you rightly say, with a significant challenge in the autumn, where there is a very tight schedule between the scientific advice being published, the Commission coming forward with its proposals and the December Council. Although, as I am sure you appreciate, we do attempt, and I think at least for every year that I have been Fisheries Minister, to hold a debate on the floor of the House after we have received the first proposals, to give all Members of this House an opportunity to debate the issue before I go to Council.

Q18 Angus Robertson: Turning to a little bit more detail on total allowable catches, your colleague, Ross Finnie, tabled an answer in the Scottish Parliament yesterday in detail about this, so it is a matter of record what has happened to the different species and on the days at sea. In his answer, interestingly, he says that some of these decisions were disappointing. Do you know what those might have been, disappointing for him, or what was disappointing for you?

Mr Bradshaw: I think that what was most disappointing about the final result of this year's negotiations, in terms of days at sea, was that we did not feel that enough differentiation was made between the reduction in days at sea for our white-fish fleet, which generally uses a bigger mesh size, and the reduction in the smaller mesh-size fleet, which would include the Dutch beam trawlers, for example, which catch significant amounts of white fish, including cod as a bycatch. We have made the argument very forcefully in the past that, because of the reductions which have already been achieved in the UK fleet, amounting to about 60% in terms of effort on cod, it was time that the Commission turned its attention to other sectors in other countries which still had not contributed that level to the cod recovery programme. Having said that, we did manage to reverse the Commission's original proposal; their original proposal was to cut the small-mesh Dutch fleet less, significantly less, than ours and actually we ended up with ours being cut the least. Although we were still disappointed with that, it was a significantly better outcome than I think most people had dared to hope.

Q19 Jim Dobbin: I think the Minister has touched on this area and the question really is about the days at sea provision and the limited period which appears to be on the agenda, which seems to have attracted as much attention as the TACs. Can you say why that was and can you explain the relationship between the two?

Mr Bradshaw: The relationship between the two is that the TACs are about the total amount of fish that you are allowed to land of a particular species, and the days at sea are about the number of days that you are allowed to go out and fish, and fisheries management, whether here or in other parts of the world, generally is based on a combination of those two controls. Given the still very worrying state of the cod stock, particularly in the North Sea, around the UK coast, the advice from the international scientists for the fifth year running is that there should be no cod caught at all. The Commission came forward with recommendations for a 25% cut in both the days at sea and the TACs, and we ended up with a cut in the TACs of around 14% and a cut in the days at sea of between 5% for our own fleet and 7%/8% for other countries' fleets. That gives you a broad picture, I think, of why the Commission felt it had to recommend that level of reductions and where we ended up. You are all experienced Members to know that wherever one ends up in these negotiations one tends to get criticised, by the fishing industry or by the environmentalists, for having done either too much or too little, so that can be a bit of a thankless task. I think we ended up with an outcome which was responsible. I think it would have been irresponsible and unrealistic to expect no further reduction in pressure on cod, given the still very parlous state of the stock and the independent scientific advice. Yet we did manage, again, I think, to fight for a relatively good deal for our own industry.

Q20 Jim Dobbin: Could you say which is the stronger lobby, the conservationists or the fishermen?

Mr Bradshaw: It is very difficult to make a judgment and Honourable Members will have their own views. I think they are different lobbies. I think there is a difference between a very strong sectoral industry interest and a kind of broader public concern about the sustainability of our fishing industry, although I think it is unhelpful and short-sighted constantly to try to drive a wedge between the fishermen and the environmentalists. Actually, responsible fishermen and responsible environmentalists want exactly the same thing; they want a healthy, productive, marine environment, with healthy fish stocks, not just for biodiversity reasons but for economic reasons, so that those fish are there to exploit for future generations. One of the things that I am very encouraged about, although I think we still had a big challenge on this in recent years, is that we are seeing much more co-operation and collaboration between the fishing industry and between scientists, we are seeing environmentalists working with fishermen, in many parts of the country, to try to establish more sustainable fishing practices. I think that has to be the way forward, rather than simply having this constant and historic argument between the fishermen and the environmentalists about how many fish there are in the sea.

Chairman: On lobbyists: Richard.

Q21 Richard Younger-Ross: The EU has a lot of lobbyists working in Brussels; to come to a decision, there has to be a fairly equal balance between the pressure being brought by one lobby and another for ministers and the researchers and the Commissioners to come to a reasonable answer, not being shouted at by one side. Considering that there is one lobbyist for every member of staff that works in Brussels, do you think that the balance is about right?

Mr Bradshaw: I can speak only from my own experience, and certainly my own experience on fisheries is that the fishing industry is always in Brussels in force, there is no doubt about it, in the run-up to the negotiations, not just the December Council but other Council meetings that the industry feels are important to them. We work together, my Scottish, Northern Irish and, at times, Welsh colleagues and I, having regular meetings through the Council, discussions with the industry to keep them informed, and to discuss negotiating positions with them. I have to say that, in general, the environmental organisations are not as engaged in the negotiating process in Brussels and I regret that. Certainly we try, in the course of the year, to make sure that the environmental organisations provide a view on the December Council recommendations, in the same way as the fishing industry does. I think one of the main reasons for this is that we are one of the few countries in the European Union where fisheries and environment are combined in a single department, and in my case in a single minister. Most other countries still have this, I think, very damaging divide between a producer interest department, a farming and fisheries department and an environment department, and sometimes it is quite hilarious at Council meetings. At successive Council meetings you will have an environment minister from one country saying one thing in one Council, "Isn't it terrible, the state of the fish stocks; we've got to do something about it," and you will have the same country's fisheries minister, in the next meeting, saying "I want more fish for my fishermen." Thankfully, we do not have that problem in the UK because, very sensibly, we have combined our producer interest departments with our environment department.

Q22 Mr Borrow: Can I ask about a dilemma which has been raised with us, which is the link between the level of discards and the level of TACs, in the sense that if you allow more fish to be caught then there are going to be fewer discards, but that could mean that you are having levels of catch which do not allow fish stocks to recover. Is that correct, and is there a way of dealing with this situation which reduces the level of discards without setting the level of TACs artificially high?

Mr Bradshaw: The issue of discards is caused by restrictions on catch levels but also by days at sea. There are ways in which one can try to get round this, by the use of technical measures, for example. Some of the technical measures which we agreed at this Council gave some of our vessels extra days at sea if they used particular gear, which was more selective, which allowed them, for example, to catch prawns but without catching the cod as a bycatch so much. So far, nobody in the world involved in fisheries has yet invented the perfect technical measure of catching only one species. It is a particular challenge for the United Kingdom, in contrast to many other countries, like Iceland, which is often quoted, for example, in that we have an almost uniquely-mixed fishery around our coasts, where many vessels are catching a large number of species. One of the reasons that we argued against a zero TAC for cod, in spite of the scientific advice, was that it was almost impossible to avoid catching some cod, if you were going for haddock, which is plentiful, or prawns, which are plentiful, so to have prevented any cod at all being caught would have meant not allowing fishermen to catch anything else either. Clearly, a balance has to be struck here, and this is one of the complexities which we having to grapple with constantly.

Q23 Jim Dobbin: I think the Committee would be interested in you saying something about the current levels of fish stock around the UK and what the main problem areas are, other than the North Sea cod issue?

Mr Bradshaw: Cod is the main problem area. In a way, it is one which I think, because of the iconic status of cod in our culture, always gets a lot of publicity. In a way, it would be wrong to see the state of our fishing stocks and the state of our fishing industry solely through the prism of cod, because, as you have alluded to already, Mr Dobbin, many of the other stocks, which actually are more important, in economic terms, to our industry, are in good shape. I think cod is now only the fifth stock in terms of its economic importance to the UK fishing industry after prawns, herring, mackerel and haddock. All of the latter four stocks are in reasonably good shape, and they have not always been. The herring stock collapsed in this country 20 or 30 years ago, and thanks to some of the tough decisions we took back then the stock has recovered. Whilst people are concerned about cod, rightly, most of the stocks of interest to our industry are in good shape. That was one of the reasons why we managed to achieve increases in many of the stocks, like prawns and haddock, which are important to our industry, in the December Council, which I hope will offset some of the reductions which will come from the cuts in the cod TAC and days at sea. If you look at incomes and price levels in our ports around the country, Chairman, I think you will find that, certainly in terms of prices, they are at all-time record levels and fisheries incomes last year increased for the second year running. I hope, given the very healthy price of fish again this year, that pattern will be repeated this year too.

Q24 Chairman: I recall, when we spoke in the Committee, we discussed the question of global warming and the effect on cod stocks, that, in fact, the world levels of cod stocks may be affected by global warming. Have there been further thoughts on that, further scientific publications on that, in the intervening period?

Mr Bradshaw: As far as I am aware, and Simon may want to come in here, all of the research that I have seen to date confirms the view which I think I expressed to the Committee last year, that, although it is right that increased sea temperatures have meant that some stocks have moved further north, in terms of where they are appearing, the temperatures around our coast are still well within the cod's range of habitat, if you like. I think the fact that we had our best year class in codlings, in baby cod, in 2005 for ten years in the North Sea, shows that it is still perfectly possible for the cod to thrive and recover in the North Sea. This is something certainly that we are keeping a close eye on and which could have some quite interesting impacts on our fishing industry. In my part of the world, for example, the South West industry is making a lot of money from things like squid and sardines, which are associated more traditionally with the Bay of Biscay, and even the Mediterranean. In fact, we are exporting big quantities of squid and sardines to the fish markets of Italy.

Q25 Angus Robertson: Minister, we know that the efforts to restore stocks have been going on for a long time and, at the same time, pretty much just in one generation, there are significant fishing communities, such as those in my constituency, which have seen almost the complete eradication of the industry; the jobs have gone, livelihoods have gone, the way of life has gone, the nature of these communities is changing fundamentally. Do you see any real prospect of an end to the cuts?

Mr Bradshaw: I am not sure that the Honourable Member has listened to the answer I just gave. In terms of most of our stocks and fisheries incomes, things have been improving for three years and, in fact, not his own constituency but the constituency of his Party Leader I think had a record year last year; so it is not all doom and gloom, as some people often try to suggest. I think there is a serious problem with cod, which most sensible people recognise, and serious efforts are being made to recover the cod stock. Most of our stocks are in good shape, they are being fished sustainability and that is the answer, if we want a long-term, sustainable and profitable fishing industry, to avoid the mistakes of the past, when we have overfished certain stocks and they have collapsed, as happened to herring, as I said a little bit earlier, that is the way to secure a long-term economic future for constituents such as the Honourable Member's.

Q26 Angus Robertson: When do you foresee the cuts ending?

Mr Bradshaw: As I say, there have not been cuts this year. Most of the stocks that his constituents are interested in actually increased in their TACs, so it is inaccurate to refer to cuts; in fact, there have been increases, very significant increases, in the last two years, in prawns, which is the most important stock to the Scottish industry, by a long way, I think they had a 35% increase in the TAC last year and a further 7% this year. While it is true to say that we have had to take some very difficult decisions on cod, there have been some very welcome decisions on other stocks which are more important in economic terms to the Scottish industry and to his constituents in particular.

Q27 Richard Younger-Ross: I am going to talk about Regional Advisory Councils, but just before we move on, the cuts and the TACs, obviously a lot of people in the industry are still feeling the pinch, they feel that there are a lot of cuts, their boats are laid up, they are not earning their income and there are some who may turn to the black market, black catches. Has that issue been raised in Council and is it a concern to yourself or the Council and Commission, the size of that market, and, if so, are there any proposals to deal with it?

Mr Bradshaw: Yes, and I am very grateful for that question, Chairman, because I think one of the very significant things which have happened in the last 12 months, and I think we have discussed this in this Committee before, is that we introduced something called the First Buyers and Sellers Registration Requirement, which means that there is now full traceability of fish caught through the system, something which many people have been calling to happen for a long time. The impact of this has been dramatic in squeezing out illegally-caught fish from the market, and that is one of the reasons why we have had such a big increase in fish prices in the last year. Fish prices rose by 15% last year overall and that is partly because, of course, if you allow illegal fish to be put on the market not only do you decimate the stock but also you deflate the price. Although there is considerable resistance from much of the fishing industry, particularly in Scotland, to the introduction of this Requirement, they now think it is the best thing that has ever happened to them, because it has boosted their income so much. You are absolutely right to point to the importance of legality and transparency in the fishing industry, and we have made enormous strides on that in the last 12 months, which are now welcomed universally.

Q28 Richard Younger-Ross: Is that across the EU?

Mr Bradshaw: It is across the EU, yes.

Q29 Richard Younger-Ross: Moving on to the Regional Advisory Councils, very recently we cleared a proposal increasing the Community funding for these; can you say whether these are working and what impact they are having? For instance, what input did they have to TACs and to overseeing North Sea cod?

Mr Bradshaw: I will give the Committee a couple of examples, and again these were ideas which were widely pooh-poohed by many people before they were established but now are widely welcomed. At this December's Council, for example, we achieved a derogation in the cut of days at sea in the Irish Sea for boats fishing for cod, if they took part in what is called an 'augmented monitoring' scheme, where they have observers on the boats to examine the issue of bycatch, which we discussed earlier. This was a specific recommendation which had been worked up by the North Western Waters Regional Advisory Council. In terms of the cod recovery plan, the North Sea Regional Advisory Council is very engaged in the discussions which are going to be taking place this year on the review, the long-awaited review, of the cod recovery plan. I have no doubt that as the Regional Advisory Councils establish a reputation for responsible and sound investigations and recommendations their influence will grow, and we think that can be only a good thing.

Q30 Richard Younger-Ross: I am pleased to hear that. The idea of regional input I think was first mooted by an MEP, Robin Teverson, who was then the MEP for Cornwall, now Lord Teverson. Do you feel, Minister, that there is a development and a greater role for these; is it possible that we will look at giving them greater powers, and do you see that developing between both the EU waters, which probably we are talking about here today, but will their influence come into what you call UK waters?

Mr Bradshaw: Certainly I can imagine their role growing and augmenting, and indeed that is one of the things that we have said all along, that ideally we think that Regional Advisory Councils should take on more and more powers and more and more responsibility. In a way, if one thinks about the seas around our coast, one of the strong arguments against the idea that we could simply shut ourselves off from everybody else and sort out our own fishing is that we share our waters around our coasts with a number of other Member States but we have regional seas. It makes sense, for example, in the North Sea, to talk with the other countries which have an interest in the North Sea, in the western Atlantic or the approaches to the nations which have an interest there as well. That is where these agreements need to be thrashed out, between the Member States which have an interest and have a fishing tradition in those areas, and that is what the Regional Advisory Councils are doing.

Chairman: We will finish this session there, Minister; a very, very interesting discussion. I know that Allan McCartney, a Scottish MEP, not of my own Party, was very active in supporting Regional Advisory Councils as well and I think many of us have seen the benefits. Can I thank you very much for this session, it has been very long and I look forward to your promises on scrutiny breaches being carried out, and in fact us having no disappointment to express in the future. Thank you for the session on total allowable catches and the process. I think that was very interesting. Particularly can you accept our congratulations on alerting the Commission and our fellow members of the Fishing Council to the plans by Iceland to try to sell whale meat. I think everyone with any sense, in terms of world concern for animals, will be very grateful to you and to your colleagues, and I congratulate you on achieving success in that. It is a pity that we cannot look forward to ending whaling completely by Iceland; it would be a great boost if we could. Thank you for coming along to this session.