Examination of Witnesses (Questions 940-959)
Jonathan Shaw and Mr Lindsay Harris
11 JUNE 2008
Q940 Chairman: Hello, welcome and
thank you very much for coming along. I know it has been a bit
difficult to arrange diaries, but we are very obliged to you for
coming along. It is also actually, between you and me and nobody
else, quite refreshing to have a Minister other than Jeff Rooker!
Jonathan Shaw: I can hear his response to that!
Q941 Chairman: So can I! The formalities:
this is a formal session, a transcript will be taken; obviously
there will be an opportunity to look through it and correct it,
if necessary; and also I think we are being webcast so there is
about a one in six million possibility that somebody may be listening
to what we say.
Jonathan Shaw: You never know when they are
listening.
Q942 Chairman: Would you like to
start with an opening statement or would you like to go straight
into Q and A?
Jonathan Shaw: I want, my Lord Chairman, to
say a few opening remarks. To begin with, can I bring the Committee's
attention to the gentleman on my right who is Lindsay Harris,
one of the senior fisheries officials in the Department, who will
make a contribution as and when I am searching for various details
perhaps that your Lordships wish to know of. First of all, can
I say that I very much welcome this inquiry and the opportunity
to give evidence to you. Looking forward, we are seeing that we
will have Common Fisheries Policy reform in 2012 and so your inquiry
will help us with that process that we are at the beginning stages
of. Officials are discussing within the UK between the various
administrations as to how we formulate our UK position on CFP
reform. We want to see a more long-term management approach to
fisheries; we want to see more of a regional approach; and also
we want to see a greater stakeholder involvement, all underpinned
by a good compliance system that provides that level playing field
for all Member States. Those are some opening remarks and I hope
that I am able to answer the questions that you have provided
for us.
Q943 Chairman: We could just say
"snap" to everything you have said and we could go home
basically, but I think the difficulty of course is knowing how
to get to the end point that I think is critical there is agreement
on. Can we start by looking at the individual bits of the Common
Fisheries Policy and can you identify specific reforms that you
would like to see?
Jonathan Shaw: We are at the beginnings of that
discussion with our colleagues in the devolved administrations
and it is important that we have those discussions and, indeed
with industry as well, but, as I said, broadly we favour more
long-term management plans for different stocks, recognising that
sometimes a management plan for one species can interfere with
the management of other species. It is not easy within the mixed
fishery that we have around the UK shores, but we want to see
more of that and we want to see less micro-management from Brussels
and we want to see, as I say, a better involvement with the industry.
I think from last December we are at the beginnings of improving
on that. The Fisheries Science Partnerships, which I think you
have heard evidence for, have brought together the industry and
science in a way that has not happened in the past to agree areas
of work and things particularly to look at, so that then informs
us as we take forward our proposals for reform. We are seeing
the cod-avoidance programmes that came out of last year's negotiations.
We want to see more involvement with industry working up proposals
for long-term management and that is underpinned by the science
partnership approach. We believe that it is more desirable to
have a more regionalised approach, particularly when it comes
to certain stocks rather than a one-size-fits-all approach.
Q944 Chairman: Could we have a look
at recovery and management plans. What do you see as the strengths
and weaknesses that can be identified and how do you think they
might be improved?
Jonathan Shaw: In terms of the recovery and
management plans, we have got a number of plans in place. We are
seeing some good examples of where it is working well—cod
in the North Sea—but part of that recovery plan has been
alongside a large decommissioning process, so some of the recovery
is getting the number of vessels in relation to the amount of
quota available right. We think that for the over 10 metre fleet
we have got that right. We do want to see more plans in place
but I think that they need to be long term. They need to take
account, as I say, of factors of particular species. We want to
see it based on species and understanding how one set of plans
can actually have an impact upon others. For example, if you have
a sole recovery plan and you put in a certain mesh size, that
may then impact upon small codling. It is that type of arrangement
plus also in terms of the recovery and management plans we want
to be able to respond to much quicker if there are on-the-ground
changes apparent. At the moment it does take a very long time.
In the present situation we are seeing a higher level of Channel
cod reported but the TAC was reduced considerably at the last
December Council hearing, and we, along with the French, have
asked for that to be reviewed, and I think that it will be reviewed
but it takes many months.
Q945 Chairman: I suppose one of the
emerging debates that we have picked up is the need to perhaps
more explicitly identify social and economic as well as biological
objectives. First of all, one of the things to say is they should
not be in conflict because if you do not get the biology right
you will not have anything to have social and economic consequences
for, but do you see that it is possible to have the RACs developing
social and economic objectives? I should have thought there are
quite a number of difficulties.
Jonathan Shaw: There are difficulties and competing
demands there as you have highlighted. Internally when we are
taking decisions on new legislation or changes, we do have a socio-economic
impact assessment that the Chief Economist of the Department provides.
A recent example would be where I made the decision not to increase
the bass minimum landing size. Part of that assessment is looking
at the scientific and biological aspects as well as the social
and economic impact on the inshore fleet, which was a factor in
my decision.
Q946 Chairman: It is difficult to
get objectives though, is it not?
Jonathan Shaw: Yes it is.
Chairman: Okay let us move on. Viscount Ullswater?
Q947 Viscount Ullswater: Minister,
the principle of relative stability is fundamental to the Common
Fisheries Policy, although some Members are perhaps less keen
on it than others. How sustainable do you think that principle
is in the long term considering that it effectively amounts to
a derogation from the free movement principles of the European
Union? You recognise in your very full briefing to us that the
principle is sometimes out of line with reality and that climate
change might exaggerate it. Do you therefore expect pressure on
it from other Member States for its reconsideration?
Jonathan Shaw: I think that if we were starting
now we may want to divvy up things in a different way, but in
considering when coming before you this afternoon, it is a can
of European worms, or sand eels maybe, and if one did open that
it would be a negotiation. Of course, if you just look at the
economics of it, then you can have an economic conclusion, but
of course life is not quite like that, and each Member State will
want to negotiate, and so what you might have going in might be
something different coming out. Given the demands upon the Commission,
and our desire to get some good reforms and ambitious reforms
for the Common Fisheries Policy in the way that I have just described,
I think that that is where we need to concentrate efforts. That
is our position. Re-opening the allowances to each Member State
would require a very, very long negotiation. There would be winners
and losers, there are swings and roundabouts, but we do not detect
a huge enthusiasm for the re-negotiation of the allowances.
Q948 Viscount Ullswater: Can I just
have a supplementary on that. I can see from your point of view
that there is a convenience in having the status quo, but do you
think you are in line with the British fishing fleet and British
fishermen as to whether we have got the best divvy that we can
out of the CFP?
Jonathan Shaw: In the meetings and discussions
that I have with both the NFFO and the SFF neither of those organisations
have said to me what we need to concentrate and spend our time
on is re-negotiations. I think it would be my former point in
terms of the long-term management plans, tackling discards, having
a more regionalised approach, less of the micro-management, with
a compliance system that is the same across Europe.
Q949 Lord Plumb: On the question
of quotas there is reference in paragraph 18 to the international
quota swaps. How common are these swaps and how are they organised?
When we were in Peterhead, we visited there and talked to a lot
of fishermen and it seemed there was growing interest in international
trading quotas. I just wonder whether you are encouraged by this
and whether you see this as an extension?
Jonathan Shaw: I think there are between 100
and 120 international quota swaps every year and that is, as you
will be aware, arranged through the MFA, and that seems to work
reasonably well. The industry do those themselves as well but
we do have the right to veto if we think that it is not in the
best interests of the UK. In terms of the Quota Management Change
programme, you will be aware that the Scottish Executive have
recently published a consultation on separation of the UK quota.
Up until the elections in Scotland, officials from all of the
administrations have been working on a Quota Management Change
programme, but obviously that has now been stopped and we have
not finished our conclusions as to the consultation paper. We
are going to look at that because it has implications for all
parts of the UK. The interesting point is that the consultation
is only on the operational side and how it will be implemented,
rather than the principle, and I signalled some months ago that
I would issue a consultation on the principle. Where we are at
the moment is we need to consider that, and so we are not any
further forward in terms of the Quota Management Change programme,
I regret, but these are issues that we need to manage.
Q950 Lord Plumb: Just if I may Chairman
on a supplementary, on the principle one hears it said that fishermen
sell their quotas to the Spaniards and then complain bitterly
that the Spaniards are pinching their fish. You get mixed reports,
particularly through the press, of whether this is good, bad or
indifferent—usually it is bad for the British fishermen
as seen by them.
Jonathan Shaw: I am sure we can provide you
with examples where UK fishermen have bought quota as well, and
we can intervene if we do not feel that that is in the UK interest
in terms of the swaps, but people do sell quota. As I say, we
want to have a look at the Change programme and we have not been
able to do that, but we have not had opposition and we are not
opposed to international swaps.
Q951 Viscount Brookeborough: Before
asking question three you mentioned earlier, Minister, the socio-economic
impact assessments of various regulations that you might put in
force. When we went to Peterhead we found that obviously over
the last 10 years there have been great changes in the fishing
but they have unemployment down to below 1% and they are flourishing
because of the oil industry and diversification and whatever.
Can you give us some examples of where those assessments become
really important in other places around the country where areas
are suffering where there may be a large amount of unemployment
from ex-fishermen or their population may have moved away because
there is no longer employment?
Jonathan Shaw: In the two largest ports in the
south-west of England, Brixham and Newlyn, which I have visited,
fishing is very much central to the economies there, not just
the fishing itself but a lot of related industries, not least
of all one of the largest industries, particularly for Cornwall
and Devon, that of tourism. People enjoy going to Brixham Harbour
and they want to go to the fish market and they want to see boats
and they want to see fishing vessels. I think we do take account
of that and I know that the regional development agencies take
account of that and they have invested considerable sums in supporting
both the industry and related industries. I think the quayside
for example in Brixham is getting considerable investment. The
regional development agencies in England certainly take account
of that and see how they can maximise the economic benefits of
the industry.
Q952 Viscount Brookeborough: Thank
you very much. TACs and fishing effort are obviously very important
management tools. Would you like to tell us a little bit more
about the advantages and disadvantages and whether we have got
the appropriate balance of management tools in order to control
our fishing?
Jonathan Shaw: Yes, they need to work in harmony.
We would not want to just have effort control on its own because
that would then mean that we would see targeting of particular
species and further discards, so it is about getting all three
of those tools working in harmony. I think that we need to take
those a stage further in terms of where we look at things such
as using selective nets. I think that you have heard from the
Chief Executive of the NFFO Barry Deas about the eliminator net
which is proving to be very effective in separating cod, haddock
and whiting, so I think it is about using those tools in relation
to selectivity of new gear and also, as I briefly referred to,
the real-time closures and getting fishermen to sign up to these
new ways of working and, indeed, working with them to come up
with the ideas in the first place. We have got some agreements
with real-time closures for cod avoidance and obviously we are
very keen for those to work because we were able to make some
progress this year at Brussels based on plans. What we want to
do this year is go back based on actual facts of what has happened
in practice to be able to take us to further stages of being able
to have more of our own management in place.
Q953 Viscount Brookeborough: In your
evidence in paragraph 7 you talk about TACs and scientific evidence
and you in fact say that "this is a consequence of the time
lags built in". They probably occur without being built in
because of the slowness of the scientists in working things out.
Do you feel that more resources or that some other help could
be given to bring the science a little bit more up-to-date quicker
because it does lag so far behind that we do get problems with
that?
Jonathan Shaw: It does lag behind and I think
Joe Horwood from CEFAS talked about that in his evidence to you
and also the accuracy of that science is variable, and whiting
particularly this year has proved very difficult. But I think
that the ICES advice is coming quicker to the Commission and then
obviously we are able to make judgments on that.
Q954 Viscount Brookeborough: Are
we resourcing it enough?
Jonathan Shaw: We are resourcing it. We have
CEFAS and we are funding that. We have funding arrangements in
place for a 10-year period so that they can plan and ensure that
they have got scientists in place, so I have no reason to believe
that we are not putting in sufficient resources into fisheries
science.
Q955 Chairman: Real-time closures
are obviously a big step, almost a change of mentality—
Jonathan Shaw: Yes.
Q956 Chairman: But they hang by a
very delicate thread, do they not, and certainly for other Member
States' boats, it is voluntary observance of them and one wonders
if it breaks down what the consequences would be.
Jonathan Shaw: You are absolutely right to say
a thin thread. If it breaks down then what are the alternatives?
It is to continue with the system that we have; a very crude,
centralised approach that is not satisfactory and does not really
engender a partnership approach between those who have to enforce
and those who want to make a living, and so it is "put up"
time, is it not?. There are monitors on the vessels that are taking
part in the cod-avoidance programme and so the proof of the pudding
will be in the eating, my Lord Chairman, because there is everything
to gain and everything to lose, so it is high stakes in many ways.
Q957 Chairman: But you can get to
the position where you can have all the British fleet signed up
to it and then just a rogue other Member State steaming through
and that is it.
Jonathan Shaw: We are wanting to be at the reforming
end of the Common Fisheries Policy in the same way that we want
to be at the reforming end of the Common Agricultural Policy so
it does require us to take a lead. Clearly other Member States
will be watching and we will have gained some benefits from this.
If they are allowing their vessels to simply ignore the arrangements
that we have made with the Commission, because you quite rightly
say we cannot legally stop a vessel, but again we have not heard
any reports that I am aware of to say that other Member States
are not co-operating. I guess the Commission will take a pretty
dim view, the Commissioner wants to reform, he wants to see us
going in this direction, and if other Member States' vessels were
going into closed areas then that would not do them any good.
Q958 Earl of Dundee: Minister, you
have touched on this but could you please tell us a bit more about
how we might reduce discard levels?
Jonathan Shaw: One of the recent announcements
from the Commission, which is very welcome, is that rather than
having a ban on discards, which is a very blunt instrument, he
has said that we can have targets for discards, and that brings
in much more flexibility and it allows us to work with the industry
to work up ways on what I have referred to in terms of whether
it is avoidance plans, selectivity or providing incentives in
terms of additional days at sea. It has to be in the long term.
A last-resort crude ban will create all sorts of implications
as to what we do with all of that fish that there is not a market
for, for example. It is problematic within our mixed fishery area
and we do not want to see markets created for undersized fish
obviously either, so we welcome what he has said about targets
rather than a blunt instrument. We do want to see additional markets
for other fish and that has happened in recent years. The red
gurnard is the fish that is often referred to and many of my Lords
here will be aware that monkfish now is the third most popular
fish. Who would have thought that 10 or 20 years ago? It is a
very important fish. I think Mr Harris might be able to tell the
Committee a little bit about some of the partnerships we are doing
on discards with whiting with the French, which is encouraging.
Mr Harris: Yes, whiting is one of the species
that is most heavily discarded and in the North Sea in the English
fleet it tends to be boats targeting prawns that have high amounts
of discarded whiting. The French fleet are targeting different
species so it is a slightly different problem. We have each been
doing trials of different selective gear to try and find ways
with the scientists and the fishermen working together both releasing
more of the unwanted, smaller whiting while not losing the valuable
prawn catch. There have been experiments done for decades on more
selective gear, but it is getting the balance right that there
is enough in it for the fishermen that they actually want to use
it so that it is taken up. It looks potentially as if there are
some quite encouraging things coming out of that.
Q959 Earl of Dundee: Do you think
there may be further ways in which government can promote the
consumption of alternative products?
Jonathan Shaw: I think that a number of the
celebrity chefs influence things to eat and would probably be
a little more influential than the Fisheries Minister. It crushes
me to think that but I have to face up to the reality; my culinary
skills are not the same as Rick Stein's! Hugh Fearnley-Whittingsall
has done that and I think celebrity chefs have certainly raised
the profile of alternatives, and pollock is another species that
is often seen as an alternative to cod. I think that doing that
helps and obviously that then creates new markets for fishermen.
People did not eat sea bass in the way that they do today and
that is a sustainable stock and that has provided an additional
opportunity particularly for the under 10 metre fleet.
| 
