Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20
- 39)
WEDNESDAY 16 JANUARY 2008
Lord Rooker
Q20 Viscount Brookeborough:
What is your personal opinion on fisheries management and the
future of it? Are we going to continue arguing poles apart and
continue to denude the fisheries?
Lord Rooker: I am no expert on this and I am
not allowed personal opinions as a minister anyway, but the fact
of the matter is I understand there are loads of fish in the sea,
but we are not used to catching them, we are not used to eating
them, we do not know how to cook them because we have brought
up on a range of fish that we have over-fished because they were
easy to get at, so it may be we will have to say there are other
parts of the oceans we go to. If the fish have all gone they have
all gone; this is one of the great dilemmas, is it not? I have
to say, by the way, with climate change, you only need a half
of a degree change in temperature in parts of the Irish Sea in
particular and they have gone. Climate change and temperatures
of the sea will make a dramatic difference to the fishing grounds,
and therefore that is something we are going to have to cope with.
We are doing it now in terms of crops that we are growing, which
we were discussing last night. We are growing wine and tea in
this country in a way that we have not done for many, many years—I
do not think we grew tea before but we certainly grew wine—we
will grow new crops because of climate change. The effect on the
sea is equally dramatic and it only requires a very small change
in temperature and the fish will disappear, move elsewhere. This
is something that the fishermen and scientists can argue about
until the cows come home, but if the fish are not there you cannot
fish them.
Q21 Lord Cameron of Dillington:
Can I ask a question about the exclusive competence of the EU
in marine matters; is this going to affect the Marine Bill for
instance that is supposed to be coming in later this year? If
domestic governments are not allowed competence in this area,
is this going to make a difference?
Lord Rooker: I do not think so. I have not seen
a draft Marine Bill for a while, although I know it has been kicking
around, and I will deal with it in due course, but the initial
genesis of the Marine Bill crossed my desk when I was at ODPM
back in 2004 and the issue was that around the coast—we
are an island nation—there is a complete mess of jurisdictions.
I was shown maps and charts about why it needed to be sorted out—there
is the foreshore and once you go out within the three mile limit
the jurisdictional mess is crazy and it needed sorting out. That
was the genesis to start it and I was allegedly there to hold
the ring between other ministers.
Q22 Lord Cameron of Dillington:
But the EU seems to be taking all that competence to itself.
Lord Rooker: I do not think so; it may be in
terms of the fisheries policy but the Marine Bill is not just
about fisheries policies, there is a misnomer there if it is,
it is not, in fact probably the majority is not about fisheries
policies.
Q23 Chairman:
I suppose one of the bright spots in fisheries management is the
development of regional fisheries management groups, the North
Sea Group sort of thing. Is the move to exclusive competence in
the EU compatible with that sort of regional approach to fisheries
management?
Lord Rooker: This is an area where legal issues
come into play, with respect. The codification should not make
any difference to the existing position on future domestic marine
legislation or to regional fisheries management, but as you are
probably aware there have been some judgments in the European
Court of Justice: I am told Kramer, which is a case of
1976, and the case of the Commission v United Kingdom in
1979 which established that the conservation of marine biological
resources under the Common Fisheries Policy was totally and irreversibly
within the exclusive competence of the Community. That is simply
now stated on the face of the treaty, but in other words there
is no change; that was there, it was accepted from 1976 and 1979.
Q24 Chairman:
It is moving from a decision of the European Court to a treaty
provision.
Lord Rooker: That is right, but it has not actually
changed anything in practical terms.
Q25 Viscount Ullswater:
Is that going to impede any of our energy requirements in the
North Sea, any of the wind farms that are planned for the North
Sea, if the marine conservation areas are going to be dictated
by Brussels. Will that impact on our requirement for energy or
are there plans for offshore wind farms particularly?
Lord Rooker: I am not sure of the present status
of that. All I can remember is that the Marine Bill and the idea
of having legislation for what was going on around the coast—and
do not forget some of this is devolved so when you go around the
coast you are dealing with Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland
as well—for example the oil rigs were not covered by the
original plan, which was why I could not get agreement around
Whitehall because the then DTI did not want the oil rigs covered
by the marine legislation, so I am not sure about the wind farms.
The wind farms are probably closer to the coast than the oil rigs
and it may be that they therefore do come within the areas, but
then the wind farms are a contentious issue, as to where they
are placed, both from a scientific point of view, the wind point
of view and a defence point of view. I have a good answer here:
this is a different form of competence to do with habitats so
no. The answer is no.
Chairman: Okay, thank you. Animal welfare:
Lord Plumb.
Q26 Lord Plumb:
Thank you, My Lord Chairman. The animal welfare issue has been
very much in the news recently—every night last week—with
people concerned about the welfare of birds or beasts or even
fish. The Lisbon Treaty brings the provisions of the 2006 protocol
into the treaty and there is a suggestion this has to be therefore
amended accordingly. If that is so, how do you think it is going
to change? There are new provisions which might affect the fishing
practices and of course, as you have already been saying, on the
fisheries problem there are some issues that are almost impossible
to determine, but this is a matter where we are concerned with
the protection of our animals and this is very much an issue for
us at the moment, with animal diseases spreading in a way that
they have never spread before. How do you see the future here
within the Lisbon Treaty? Will it affect it, will it change it
and does it mean that the 2006 protocol arrangement is itself
amended?
Lord Rooker: The issue relating to aspects of
fish, regarding them as being sentient, of course is subject to
controversy, but the fact of the matter is that we all should
take the view that we share this planet with the animals and we
should treat them well. On the other hand, let us be serious about
this, we have animals classified as food production animals and
we need them to be looked after and kept well, with both disease
and other aspects of cruelty eradicated because I am not prepared
to say even minimised. I did not see any of the programmes last
week, I might add, but I am well aware of what was there. Parliament
has just passed the Animal Welfare Act 2006 but the scope of that
was quite confined in a way to vertebrates kept by man so you
have issues related to fish that are vertebrates and invertebrates,
but there are still borderline issues where the scientists might
argue one way or the other. In terms of the octopus, lobsters
and shellfish there are issues, but I have not got any evidence
that we need to bring in loads of legislation as a result of this,
to be honest.
Q27 Chairman:
This brings in of course the sanitary measures or the arrangements
that are made to protect our animals or sentient beings, as they
are called here—I have doubts about that personally—but
it does bring into question the whole of the wider European market
and, of course, wider from there into products that are coming
into the European Union. That of course occasionally brings into
question food security; the position in the past has been that
there is no need for food security in this country. Is that adequate?
Lord Rooker: This is something that is constantly
raised but food security is raised in different ways and people
mean different things by the term "food security" with
respect. It does not necessarily mean food security as being completely
sustainable in what we grow and what we eat here; on the other
hand we are in a global market and I do not accept the argument
that it does not matter whether we can grow or supply our own
food. My view is that we should use as much of our land to grow
as much of our food as possible, that is my view, which means
I do not have a problem with extending the seasons, for example
with polytunnels and things like that. However, there is the issue
that people do want their non-seasonal foods every week; they
cannot get them if they are grown here. To get them requires oil;
the fact of the matter is that if it is imported it is coming
by boat or plane and it needs oil, and that is where the security
aspect comes in, literally security of supplies for transport,
which is not quite the same as saying we should be self-sufficient.
We do not have any targets on self-sufficiency, as I have told
the Committee before, in terms of food. We are still well above
50 per cent and, by the way, in the 1920s and 1930s we were only
half as self-sufficient in food in this country as we are today.
It has dropped slightly in the last few years, but it is still
very high on the foods we can actually grow here, but we are far
more self sufficient in terms of food than we ever were in the
inter-war years, there is no question about that. The security
aspect, however, is transport; it is a bit like energy security
really, not relying on areas that are unstable. The argument on
food miles of course is another one as well because that is classed
as a good and bad thing, but it is not like that because there
has been enough evidence to show that products from New Zealand
are less carbon-using than ones home-grown here. The distance
or the food miles is not necessarily the key factor; it is a factor
but it is not the key factor in measuring the carbon footprint,
for example.
Q28 Lord Plumb:
The population has doubled in the period of time you are talking
about.
Lord Rooker: That is right; that is what is
remarkable. In other words, intensive agriculture has provided
this country per head with greater amounts of food than was ever
the case in the past, there is no doubt about it. We have made
more efficient use of our land and our resources, so we can feed
twice as many people, with in effect almost twice the percentage
of the food. The figures I saw recently showed that we were only
about 30 per cent self-sufficient in the Thirties.
Q29 Viscount Brookeborough:
But this is not going to continue, is it, we are going to go the
other way?
Lord Rooker: We are still way above that, in
the 60 per cent figures, it is a very small drop. The point is
that we are not going to grow any more land as it were, make better
use of our land, but we will have different crops. Climate change
will lead to the growing of different crops, there is no question
about that, and then the whole issue will be about a third of
what we grow is used to feed food animals anyway and there are
plenty of people who will make the case that with the carbon footprint
of food animals we should all be veggies; I do not agree with
that. There is nothing illegal with being a veggie, but I am not.
Chairman: I suppose we are looking forward
to the Scottish pineapple.
Q30 Viscount Ullswater:
Do you see a danger that Europe will impose more and more animal
welfare legislation which will make us more uneconomic in the
global sense that you are talking about, food from wherever it
might be cheapest is the policy relatively now. Do you think that
will impinge on Europe and the farming industry here?
Lord Rooker: Going back to co-determination
we may get a bigger debate in the Parliament about the issue of
food animals. In terms of welfare conditions, it has been the
other way round in a way. We as the United Kingdom have imposed
welfare conditions on our food producers, if I can put it that
way, well in advance of the European Union and one of our issues
has been struggling to get the EU to catch up with what we have
done. It has happened with the transport of animals, it has happened
with pigs and the sow stalls, it has happened with battery cages
as well.
Q31 Lord Palmer:
Veal crates as well.
Lord Rooker: Yes, and veal crates. In other
words, we have made a rod for our own back because that was the
desire of Parliament. The British public may say that in opinion
polls, but they do not always say it when they come to buy the
produce because it does cost a bit more, so our task at the moment
is to get the EU to catch up with us so that we get a level playing
field within Europe, but there is something to be said for Europe
wanting to give a lead and the Parliament wants to be able to
make it quite vigorous that imports into Europe have got to—this
is where they will come up against the World Trade Organisation
of course—have the same welfare conditions, welfare-friendly
production facilities for animals that we have here. I am quite
happy to argue that case, that is what should happen, but we will
come up against the WTO on that. However, this is an issue that
we have to be upfront about and we have to make it clear that
we share the planet with the animals, we use a lot of them for
food and we want them properly looked after. That should apply
to everybody and you should not be able to undercut and put other
people out of business by what would effectively be battery operations;
it is the equivalent in other industries really.
Q32 Chairman:
I have just one question on sentient beings and fish. Once you
make that concession, that fish are sentient beings, it is very
difficult then to justify lutting, is it not, because the death
that they suffer when they are brought up through the water column
is a pretty awful death.
Lord Rooker: The answer is yes, but one notes
that there is scientific evidence that vertebrate fish are sentient,
although it is subject to controversy, but there are indications
that vertebrate fish have elements of pain mechanisms and therefore
should be given the benefit of the doubt. There is an issue here,
therefore, that is going to be argued about, there is no question
about that.
Q33 Viscount Ullswater:
What about by-catches and things like that, catching dolphin in
nets, if you are going to go down an animal rights path.
Lord Rooker: They should not be catching dolphin
in nets.
Q34 Viscount Ullswater:
We are already down there, are we not?
Lord Rooker: They should not be
doing that anyway. There are all kinds of issues related to what
they should be catching and we have got a controversy now down
in the Antarctic, which the number one question today will highlight,
I have to say, in terms of whales.
Q35 Viscount Brookeborough:
We have satellite monitoring of absolutely everything now and
you can read number-plates from satellites, why can we not sort
it out on the fishing?
Lord Rooker: I know, it is amazing,
is it not, I asked that other day: how come we could not find
the Japanese whaling fleet? I am told the Australian Government
knew where they were but they would not tell anybody—no,
correction, they would not tell Greenpeace or the Sea Shepherd
but they did know where they were from the satellites. They probably
did but there is a lot more known than what we know, if you know
what I mean; in terms of that fleet it was known where they were.
Viscount Brookeborough: But surely not
only with them we could have technology which would enable us
to see much more of what is going on on fishing boats at all times.
Q36 Chairman:
We can now, it is there.
Lord Rooker: In the Irish Sea there is a box,
which they are not allowed to fish in, and it is well-known that
with satellite navigation that box is watched. I cannot think
of the exact parameters, but I have seen it on the maps, I have
seen it on the satellites when I was over there in Northern Ireland,
it is very, very precise and the fishing boats are equipped with
the equipment. They know whether they are in that box or not and
if they are in that box they are not to be fishing, and they do
get prosecuted from time to time. It may be contentious, but it
is the effort to police the system. There could be arguments that
some countries are more keen on policing the system than others,
but there is not any argument about where the boats are these
days because they are all equipped with the necessary equipment.
Q37 Earl of Arran:
Moving right away from areas of fish and animals to the very important
matters of culture, heritage and religion. In your evidence you
noted that the implication and the scope of the treaty will need
to be considered in relation to the general exemptions provided
for matters such as religious sites, cultural traditions and religious
heritage. Could you expand and perhaps clarify further on that
what you mean?
Lord Rooker: This is where I feel personally
uncomfortable. The answer is simple really, we allow animals to
be killed before they are stunned for religious purposes; if it
was up to me it would not happen, both for the Muslim community
and the Jewish community, I would not allow it. That is not up
to me and it is accepted for cultural reasons. That is what it
refers to, it is as simple as that really. I just get distressed
at the fact that some of this meat, I am convinced, finds its
way onto ordinary supermarket shelves and is not classified as
such, and if people knew the way it was slaughtered they would
not buy it, but they are not allowed to know that, so this is
another issue.
Q38 Viscount Ullswater:
Is halal butchery done throughout the EU?
Lord Rooker: Yes, this is not a UK issue.
Q39 Earl of Arran:
Surely it is very easy because traceability is so important in
all food, even at supermarket level. Surely it would be very easy
to include method of slaughter.
Lord Rooker: But that is not the issue though
because the labelling process is governed from the EU and that
is not allowed apparently on the labelling. If you want religiously
slaughtered meat, by and large people know where to go, they know
which butchers to go to. In my former constituency there was a
halal butcher so people knew what they were getting; it is when
there is an excess of supply it gets sold on to the market. I
am not saying there is anything wrong with the meat, it is perfectly
safe to eat, no one is making any comment other than I have a
personal objection, which I am entitled to have because it is
a free country, and it would always be a free vote issue, but
I personally would not buy such meat if I knew it had been slaughtered
without pre-stunning. I have been in enough abattoirs in my time
to see the process and I am more than convinced that we run a
humane slaughterhouse system in this country; I just do not think
that religious slaughter is humane, but that is an exemption that
is granted under law and that is one that we all have to live
with. That is what is referred to in the memo.
| 
