PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT GENERAL COMMITTEES

Public Bill Committee

FISHERIES BILL

First Sitting

Tuesday 4 December 2018

(Morning)

CONTENTS Programme motion agreed to. Written evidence (Reporting to the House) agreed to. Motion to sit in private agreed to. Examination of witnesses. Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.

PBC (Bill 278) 2017 - 2019 No proofs can be supplied. Corrections that Members suggest for the final version of the report should be clearly marked in a copy of the report—not telephoned—and must be received in the Editor’s Room, House of Commons,

not later than

Saturday 8 December 2018

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2018 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. 1 Public Bill Committee 4 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 2

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: †JAMES GRAY,DAVID HANSON

† Aldous, Peter (Waveney) (Con) † O’Hara, Brendan (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) † Brown, Alan (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP) Pennycook, Matthew (Greenwich and Woolwich) † Carmichael, Mr Alistair (Orkney and Shetland) (Lab) (LD) † Pollard, Luke (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) † Debbonaire, Thangam (Bristol West) (Lab) (Lab/Co-op) † Duguid, David (Banff and Buchan) (Con) † Smith, Owen (Pontypridd) (Lab) † Eustice, George (Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries † Stewart, Iain (Milton Keynes South) (Con) and Food) † Sweeney, Mr Paul (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co- † Grant, Bill (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con) op) † Hill, Mike (Hartlepool) (Lab) † Tracey, Craig (North Warwickshire) (Con) † Hollinrake, Kevin (Thirsk and Malton) (Con) † Jones, Mr Marcus (Nuneaton) (Con) Gail Poulton, Lis Gerhold, Committee Clerks † Lefroy, Jeremy (Stafford) (Con) † Morris, James (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con) † attended the Committee

Witnesses

Bertie Armstrong, CEO Scottish Fishermen’s Federation

Barrie Deas, Chief Executive, National Fishermen’s Federation Organisation

Andrew Kuyk CBE, Managing Director, UK Seafood Industry Alliance

Paul Trebilcock, UK Association of Fisheries Producer Organisations

Martin Salter, National Campaigns Co-ordinator, Angling Trust 3 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 4

Public Bill Committee Date Time Witness Thursday Until no Macduff Shellfish; Interfish/ 6 December later than Northbay Pelagic; Whitby Tuesday 4 December 2018 1.00 pm Seafoods Ltd; Scottish White Fish Producers Association Ltd (Morning) Thursday Until no New Economics Foundation 6 December later than 2.30 pm [JAMES GRAY in the Chair] Thursday Until no Carl O’Brien (Chief 6 December later than Fisheries Science Advisor, Fisheries Bill 3.00 pm Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) 9.25 am Thursday Until no Coastal Communities The Committee deliberated in private. 6 December later than Alliance; Communities 3.30 pm Inshore Fisheries Alliance 9.28 am (3) proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee The Chair: As you all know, we are here to consider shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 4; the informative bit of the Fisheries Bill. We will first Schedule 1; Clauses 5 to 13; Schedule 2; Clauses 14 consider the programme motion, which is on the to 17; Schedule 3; Clauses 18 to 28; Schedule 4; amendment paper. After that we will consider a motion Clause 29; Schedule 5; Clauses 30 to 37; Schedule 6; to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication Clause 38; Schedule 7; Clauses 39 to 43; new Clauses; and then a motion allowing us to deliberate in private. I new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill; call the Minister to move the programme motion. (4) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Ordered, Wednesday 19 December.—(George Eustice.) That— (1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at The Chair: Under the programme order, the deadline 9.25 am on Tuesday 4 December) meet— for amendments to be considered at the first line-by-line (a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 4 December; sitting of the Committee will be the rise of the House (b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 6 December; on Thursday, so if Members wish to table amendments (c) at 9.25 am, 2.00 pm and 5.00 pm on Tuesday to be considered next week in Committee, they must 11 December; table them by the rise of the House on Thursday. (d) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 13 December; Resolved, (e) at 4.30 pm, 7.00 pm and 9.00 pm on Monday That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence 17 December; received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(George Eustice.) (f) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Wednesday 19 December; (2) the Committee shall hear oral evidence on Tuesday The Chair: Copies of written evidence that the Committee 4 December in accordance with the following Table: receives will be made available in the Committee Room. Resolved, Date Time Witness That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence Tuesday Until no Scottish Fishermen’s is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the 4 December later than Federation; National witnesses are admitted.—(George Eustice.) 10.25 am Fishermen’s Federation Organisation The Chair: Why on earth we have agreed to potentially Tuesday Until no UK Seafood Industry meet in private now, I have no clue. However, the 4 December later than Alliance learned Clerks know better than I. We will now move 10.55 am on to the interesting part of the session. Tuesday Until no UK Association of Fisheries 4 December later than Producer Organisations; Examination of Witnesses 11.25 am Angling Trust Bertie Armstrong and Barrie Deas gave evidence. Tuesday Until no New Under Ten Fishermen’s 4 December later than Association 2.30 pm 9.30 am Tuesday Until no Marine Management The Chair: I am delighted to welcome the Scottish 4 December later than Organisation Fishermen’s Federation and the National Fisherman’s 3.00 pm Federation Organisation to give evidence. For the sake Tuesday Until no Blue Marine Foundation of Hansard, will you kindly introduce yourselves before 4 December later than we start questions? 3.30 pm Bertie Armstrong: Certainly, in alphabetical order, I Tuesday Until no Fishing for Leave am Bertie Armstrong, chief executive of the Scottish 4 December later than Fishermen’s Federation, which is the trade association 4.00 pm that looks after the catching sector in Scotland. It has Thursday Until no Greenpeace; Pew; Greener nine constituent associations and a geographical spread. 6 December later than UK; Marine Conservation 12.15 pm Society It covers some 450 fishing boat businesses from smallest to largest. 5 Public Bill Committee 4 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 6

Barrie Deas: I am Barrie Deas, chief executive of the Q2 George Eustice: Obviously, at the moment every National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations, which part of the UK has access to each other’s waters. The is the representative body for fishermen in England, Bill protects that in the first clause by having a key Wales and Northern Ireland. purpose of equal access. Are you happy with that approach? Barrie Deas: Yes. I think there always has been the Q1 The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food right of UK fishing vessels from any part of the country (George Eustice): What have been the main shortcomings to fish anywhere in the waters. We think that is an of the common fisheries policy from your perspective, important principle that should be retained. The NFFO and what would you hope to achieve through a domestic has some problems with the impact of the devolution fisheries policy? settlement on fisheries, which makes it much more Bertie Armstrong: The central ill of the common complex, but the fundamental principle of equal access fisheries policy is the matter of the distribution of for UK vessels is one that we support. catching opportunity—the so-called relative stability— Bertie Armstrong: Likewise, the Scots fleet would like which places us, from our waters, in the position of to continue to be able to catch its prawns off South 60% of the seafood assets removed from our waters Shields as well as in the Fladen Ground, but we are too being in the hands of non-UK EU fishing nations. The small. I think the central and relevant point is that there relative figures for other coastal states, one of which we has been no arm-wrestling and no desire for regionalisation will become on Brexit day,are Norway 85% or thereabouts of the catching area. The heft of the UK exclusive and Iceland 90%. So the primary ill is common access economic zone is great because of the area and its to our waters and statutorily giving away that amount seafood contents; it is not great in terms of home nation of our natural capital. fleets. I do not think there is any sense in splitting it up, or any requirement to do so. The second ill of the CFP is that it is distant and remote, and the process is effectively moribund. It is Q3 George Eustice: Finally, on the issue of a fair dysfunctionally distant. It is centralised by treaty and sharing methodology in future international negotiations, cannot be uncentralised or regionalised to any proper do you share the approach outlined in our White Paper, extent. The Bill must seek not to replace one unworkable which is a move to using zonal attachment as the basis system with another. for future sharing arrangements? Thirdly, and finally, some political elements of the Bertie Armstrong: From my point of view, in the CFP in terms of practical fisheries management are strongest possible terms, there has to be some sort of counterproductive and unworkable. For instance, no principle for division. Given the fact that there will be one wishes to discard our perfectly edible fish, but the access as we have access, for instance, to Norway, there way it is linked to the CFP will simply not work. will be access by European boats to UK waters. We need to be very careful not to put anything on the face Barrie Deas: I very much share Bertie’s views. The of the Bill that is obstructive. essential problems with the common fisheries policy for the United Kingdom lie in its inception, which was Barrie Deas: The most extreme example of the distortion based on the principle of equal access, and ten years in quota shares is English channel cod: the UK share is later, the principle of relative stability that allocated 9% and the French share is 84%. Other examples include shares that do not reflect the resources that are in our Celtic sea haddock: our share is about 10% and the waters. The comparison is with what we would have French share is 66%. Those kinds of distortion have been had we been an independent coastal state for the been part and parcel of relative stability and equal last 45 years, like Norway. It is a huge disparity. access, and they need to be addressed as a matter of urgency. We are tied into an asymmetric and exploitative The principle of zonal attachment is used in the arrangement. The departure of the UK from the EU division of quota shares between the EU and Norway, and therefore from the common fisheries policy provides so it is already accepted by the EU in that context. us with the first opportunity to break free of that. The Obviously, it does not work to their advantage in relation content of the Fisheries Bill is extremely important in to the UK, which is why it is not unexpected that they terms of taking the powers to control who fishes in our are very unhappy about the change. The broad picture waters—the access arrangements—and to renegotiate is that the principle of zonal attachment, reflecting the the quota shares. resources that are in the UK water, should be the basis I very much share Bertie’s view that the common for allocating quotas in the future, in our view. fisheries policy has been cumbersome to deal with and Bertie Armstrong: May I add a practical example of very remote from where the impact of the decisions are the ills of not doing that? To make a discard reduction felt, which has led to a huge gulf between fairly grandiose or ban, or a landing obligation, work, the fishing legislation and failure at implementation level. The gulf opportunity in the area has to resemble what is in the between primary legislation and its implementation has ocean. The great distortions of the CFP mean that you been recognised by the Commission and in the common simply cannot make that work, because you get choked fisheries policy. In recent years there has been an attempt immediately on having caught all of one species and to address it by introducing an element of regionalisation. still having quota for another. There needs to be an Unfortunately, the treaty of Lisbon and the introduction underlying principle, and zonal attachment is the one of co-decision making into fisheries involving the European that, by common sense and instinct—apart from the Parliament has moved active decision making even fact that Norway has accepted it—makes the most further away from where it counts and where its sense. If we approach the whole of our new role as a effects are felt. In that sense, we have moved in the coastal state with the idea that common sense and opposite direction. sustainability are central, we will do well. 7 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 8

Q4 Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) shares. Those two things should be inextricably linked, (Lab/Co-op): The Minister asked about redistribution and that is where our leverage lies in addressing the of quota from our EU friends to UK fishers. Do you quota distortions that are there at the moment. feel that there are enough powers in the Bill to give certainty about how redistribution will take place, and Q6 Luke Pollard: Okay, but there is nothing in the is redistribution a nice-to-have aim and objective, or is it Bill necessarily that gives certainty about when that something that will actually happen if it is included in drawdown period will take place against it. the Bill? Witnesses indicated assent. Bertie Armstrong: The Bill in its present form enables the UK to work as a coastal state in the way that other Q7 Luke Pollard: On the economic link, having fish coastal states do, so the answer to that is yes. We would caught under UK quota but landed in foreign ports be greatly comforted by the insertion into the Bill of a means that the economic link between the UK quota—fish date of assumption of sovereignty. The self-suggesting in UK waters—and the benefits to the UK is not always date is the end of the transition period—the implementation naturally construed. How much fish, especially from period, in our parlance. In other words, the end of quota owned by foreign boats and caught by our EU December 2020. friends, is landed in UK ports at the moment? How much should be landed, if we are to impress that an The Chair: I am very sorry, but I am finding it hard to economic link should be included in the Bill? hear you, perhaps because I am a bit deaf. Would you Bertie Armstrong: It is a complicated question. We mind speaking up a bit? should look to other coastal states. There is great assistance Bertie Armstrong: I will, forgive me. The date of the in looking at other models. Iceland and Norway—to end of December 2020 should therefore be inserted into cite the pair of them again—place much stronger economic the Bill so there is a commitment to becoming, in links on ownership of vessels and ownership of the practical terms, a coastal state. stewardship of the fishing opportunity, which is less strong in the UK because of EU regulation. Everyone Q5 Luke Pollard: Do you get a sense that there is a will know that in the late 1970s the UK attempted to plan for how quota will be drawn down against our EU apply a 75% ownership limit to foreign investment in friends, rather than our having the ability to have control fishing vessels and lost in the European courts because our waters, and then have the same quota share between that was illegal under European law. It had to be 75% UK and EU fishers? European ownership. There is an opportunity downstream Bertie Armstrong: There is a whole fisheries agreement to have another look at ownership. laid down in the withdrawal agreement, which is yet to happen. That is the point. Your question does not Q8 Luke Pollard: But that is about ownership rather indicate from whom I would seek that answer. There is a than about landing, is it not? whole fisheries agreement to be negotiated. Well, we say Bertie Armstrong: The first thing that happens if you negotiated, but you need to ask, “Who owns this place?” make rules about landing is that you have a boat full of After Brexit, we own this place. This is the UK’s natural mackerel and you cannot land it until Friday, which is capital. That places a pretty strong trump in your hand very prejudicial. If we are to make rules about landings of cards for the negotiation. which make instinctive perfect sense, to capture the At one end of the spectrum of the fisheries agreement economic activity into the land, we must have a sensible is, “None of you get in at all and fish anything,” which vision of how much volume we will need to cope with is absurd. At the other end of the spectrum is, “We’re and how that will be done seasonally. Making simple going to give up and shut the fleet down. You can have rules is likely to produce more problems than it will at it and have the lot.” The negotiating ground is in solve. It would be more helpful to have a vision for the between. We would like to see, in the fullness of time, UK fishing industry. In the withdrawal from the EU lies the UK’sfishing opportunity representing zonal attachment the opportunity effectively to double the economic activity or something close to it. That is what should be the associated with UK fishing, including the whole of the result. supply chain. As long as we are ready for that, the Barrie Deas: The UK will be an independent coastal landings will take place into the UK. We look forward state under international law. The United Nations to the day when all UK fishermen will want to land convention on the law of the sea carries certain rights their fish into the UK, because we are a world seafood and responsibilities, including the responsibility to leader and that is where they will get their best price. co-operate on the shared management of shared stocks. Barrie Deas: The principle is that UK quotas should That is a starting point. There is a very important link bring proportionate benefits to the UK. That is the between access rights and the renegotiation of quota starting point. The question is how you do that. The shares. You can use the EU-Norway example as the obligation to land a certain proportion of the fish is most relevant model for future management. The UK is there in the current arrangements—the current economic engaged in bilateral negotiations with the EU. That will link—but there are other options to meet that question be about setting quotas and total allowable catches at of equivalence. Requiring all fish to be landed in the safe levels. It will also be about access arrangements for UK would mean an intervention in the market, because the coming year, and it will be about quota shares. That if there are economic benefits to landing particular link between access and quota shares is the key to species abroad where there is higher value, there is delivering a change and rebalancing of quotas to the obviously an economic purpose to doing it that way, so UK, where needed. There will be a certain degree we have to be careful about that. It is right that the of access for European fleets—how much is to be economic link requirements are reviewed in the new negotiated—and there is the rebalancing of the quota circumstances, but I quite like the idea of having the 9 Public Bill Committee 4 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 10 flexibility, as long as there is an equivalence, and it is all fleet in Scotland has a different character and tends to linked back to the fundamental principle that UK quotas use creels, or pots, to catch shellfish—that is a great should bring proportionate benefit to the UK. generalisation; there are others—so there is a different set of problems. It is generally inshore and small scale and is therefore best sorted out locally, but I think there Q9 Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con): I have two questions. will be a better deal for all with the uplift in opportunity. Do you think the Bill will lead to increased fishing There is another abiding principle here. If you are opportunities both for new entrants and for what until going to make alterations to arrangements for fishing, now have been called the under-10s, although I think it the fish need to be there to be caught. It is one thing to is important we try to get away from that descriptor? give someone tons of fish; it is quite another if the fish Picking up on the Minister’s comments about equal are not there in prime condition with a business plan for allocation across all UK fisheries for all UK boats, do getting them landed and into a logistics chain. Much is you think that principle lies comfortably with the sustainable made of the big mackerel catchers in the pelagic fleet, management of individual fisheries? I say that because and much is made of rather lurid statistics about what there is a concern that it is difficult to do that when you percentage is held by what number. You cannot catch get boats from other parts of the UK coming into 250,000 tonnes of mackerel in winter, 100 miles to the waters off the East Anglian coast, and not only off the west of the British Isles, with hand line under-10s—you East Anglian coast. It is a concern that has been raised simply cannot. But a few hundred tonnes to the hand with me about waters off the north-east. Yesterday I line under-10s, provided the local arrangements pay was hearing about problems with managing cuttlefish attention to making sure there is a whole logistics chain down off the south-west where this problem had arisen. and they are going to get that fish to a place where I would welcome both your views on those two issues. somebody wants it, is where the opportunity lies. Barrie Deas: On increased fishing opportunities and My final input, on behalf of slightly larger-scale how they could be allocated, for a number of reasons, fishing, is: be careful what you mean by low impact. The including case law in the English courts, but also the carbon footprint per kilogram of fish of a pelagic stewardship that comes along with rights of tenure, trawler catching mackerel is very much smaller than any which have been an important factor in stabilising our other form of fishing, because you catch volume efficiently fisheries over the last 20 years, our federation takes the and quickly. There are many aspects to this. view that for existing quota it should remain the same, but for additional quota we think there is a conversation In answer to the question, yes, there is extra opportunity, to be had on the most appropriate use of that. There is a but there has to be extra opportunity to distribute. The range of options. problems are largely regional and should be sorted out Perhaps we are being a bit narrow here. You alluded regionally. We need to be careful not to place excessive to the division line at under-10, which has, I think, caused detail on the face of the Bill. I suggest that a lot of this distortions in the fleet and unintended consequences is best done by secondary legislation. —you have a cohort of high-catching under-10s, sometimes called rule beaters or super-under-10s, that have kind of Q10 Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP): distorted fishing patterns. There is recognition that we Mr Armstrong, in answer to an earlier question you need to move beyond that now. In that context, there is suggested that we might see a date of what you called an issue about how you define genuine small boats—genuine sovereignty over quotas and waters. You suggested that low-impact vessels—and I accept that. My organisation the end of the implementation period as it is now— would be very interested in taking them out of the December 2020—was the ideal date. How does that quota system altogether. That does not mean not taking square with the fact that there may be a backstop into account their contribution to mortality. In a sense, arrangement and the Prime Minister has said that, it is a reversion to what we had in the early days of depending on what happens, we might need to extend under-10 metre management, where sufficient quota the implementation period? How would inserting a date was allocated and we did not have to have monthly in the Bill work with the other flexibilities that are still quotas for that class of vessels. There is a very interesting to be resolved? conversation to be had about the future and new entrants Bertie Armstrong: I would wish to dispense with the and how the genuine low-impact fleets fit into that. flexibility to extend for fishing the implementation period Equal access has been an important principle and by placing a date on the face of the Bill. There will there are dissatisfactions wherever you have a nomadic undoubtedly be some resistance, but that would not be fleet arriving on the doorstep of a local fishery. That up to me. That is why we would like to see that in there. would be true of our boats fishing in bits of Scotland, I We are on record as being less than completely happy suppose, and certainly you hear these kinds of things that the implementation period applies to fishing at all, about Scottish boats fishing off the Northumbrian coast because legal sovereignty over the waters and the resource or down in the south-west. Fishermen are competitive. therein comes on Brexit day. However, we are where we They are competing with each other as well as with are, and we recognise that the withdrawal agreement foreign fisherman. That is the context in which you have has compromises all over the place. We therefore, with to situate that particular issue. reluctance,acceptedtheimplementationperiodcompromise, Bertie Armstrong: Mr Aldous, your question was but we would not wish to see it extended at all. about new entrants in under-10s. The enabler for a The backstop has been much described, particularly better deal for new entrants in under-10s will be the over the last few days. Clarity is helpful on what happens. uplift in opportunity for fishing that comes with Brexit; There are two preconditions: if the backstop clicks in otherwise, we presumably have fixed the problems already and is applied and there is no fisheries agreement in with the fishing opportunity available. The situation is place by that stage, and there is no prescription of what different as you go around the coast. The small-vessel is in the fisheries agreement, tariffs will apply. Fishing 11 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 12 will be cherry-picked out of the trade arrangements. Bertie Armstrong: I would reinforce that. At the Tariffs will apply to fish—which, by the way, the Scottish slight risk of crossing the red line again, and as I keep Government study indicates would not necessarily be a saying, the elevation of the UK to the world stage terminal problem—and access to our waters for other would mean that, in the simple arithmetic of volume UK fleets would cease. So it would be a mess of large and value, we would overtake Iceland. It would allow us proportions and we are rather hoping that it would not the sort of conditions that our own processing industry apply. would want to entice not only all our own landings but I see some puzzlement about the lack of access for perhaps some from others as well. However, it is a anybody else. If there is no fisheries agreement—and matter of commerce and business, generally. there is precedent on this, with EU-Norway arrangements, for instance—there is no access to each other’s waters. Q12 David Duguid: So there is the favourable price that you might get from landing elsewhere, but is there something about the ports or the processing facilities, in The Chair: May I lay down a red line, particularly for Norway for example, that the UK needs to catch up on? our detailed consideration of the Bill, starting next Could we do something through the Bill to help improve week? The backstop and all that is not in the Bill. Those that? When you mentioned money, I thought you were are, of course, important matters and they do have talking about investment in our onshore facilities as some relevance to and bearing on it, but our purpose well as the price on the market. today—and, indeed, during the process of consideration in detail, as of next week—is to consider in detail the Barrie Deas: Over time, and with rebalanced quotas, words that are on the face of the Bill. Therefore, next there would be opportunities, because of the greater week I will take a tough line on the broader political throughput, to look again at all these issues. I am not considerations and say that they are, I am afraid, simply sure what you could put in the Bill particularly that out of order. They are important, but let us focus on would be helpful, given that this is a dynamic commercial the Bill. issue that you are addressing. I certainly think that it is an important issue, but I would have to be persuaded that the Bill is the right place to address it. Q11 Alan Brown: I accept your guidance, Mr Gray, but clearly there is the suggestion of the clear date Q13 Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) versus how that would fit into the bigger picture. It is (LD): Good morning, gentleman. I do not want to the same thing when we talk about future quota allocations dwell on the date, but I think it will be an important and how that will work. Mr Armstrong mentioned the part of our discussions when we come to line-by-line issue of tariffs in his answer. In yesterday’s questions to scrutiny. Your suggestion is that the date would be the Attorney General he said that the backstop 31 December 2020, which is the currently envisaged end arrangements meant that Northern Ireland would have of the transitional period. You are resistant to any idea tariff-free access to the EU and tariff-free access to that we should extend the transitional period. How do Great Britain, whereas no other market will have that. you see fisheries management working from 29 March Is that a concern, and how could that be addressed in 2019 to 31 December 2020? this Bill? Bertie Armstrong: The provisions, as we understand Bertie Armstrong: To be honest, that is not where our it, are that we will act as a coastal state-designate during focus lies at this point in time; it is on making sure that that period, participating fully in the coastal state the Bill as an enabler of—I will use the phrase “the sea arrangements that will set the catching opportunity of opportunity”—makes it on to the statute book, for 2021. rather than on the details of what does and does not happen to Northern Ireland in the event of a backstop. Q14 Mr Carmichael: What does that mean in practical terms? David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con): Going Bertie Armstrong: It would mean that, between now back to Mr Pollard’s question about UK vessels landing and then, there would need to be the construction of elsewhere, for example Norway, can you say a little coastal state arrangements that include the United Kingdom about what motivates fishermen to land elsewhere? as a stand-alone coastal state, and for the United Kingdom What changes are required in our ports or onshore to participate in that. This is probably in 2020, but not infrastructure to make landing in the UK more attractive, before. and is that covered by the Bill? Barrie Deas: Money. That’s it, really. [Laughter] I had Q15 Mr Carmichael: That is the December Fisheries better say a bit more. Over the last 20 years, markets for Council in 2020 anticipating the conclusion of the fish have developed and diversified. Peterhead has become transitional period. You say that that is the position as the pre-eminent white fish port in Europe. Flat fish you understand it. Is that on the basis of your discussions tends to go to Urk in the Netherlands. South-west ports with the Government? are sending prime, high-value fish to the continent, and then there is the shellfish market. From time to time Bertie Armstrong: It is also as laid down in the there will be price differentials. Also, it can reflect where withdrawal agreement. Happen as may, it turned up in a the vessel is fishing: for example, it might make sense to paragraph of the legal advice yesterday, which was not go to Denmark and land for one trip and then land actually advice on what we ought to do on fisheries but back into Peterhead for the next, or to land into France. was a repeat of what was in the withdrawal agreement. Fishermen are commercial animals. They are very much Barrie Deas: The December Council later this month driven by catching fish but also by marketing fish, and will be the last time that the UK participates as a price is key. member state. The whole apparatus of European decision 13 Public Bill Committee 4 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 14 making will then not apply to us; we will not have Barrie Deas: I think the answer is that a transition or MEPs and we will not be involved in any of the decision- implementation period was agreed to give business a making forums. The transitional period is a little bit chance to adjust to leaving the EU— anomalous and strange, because the UK will be part of the EU delegation to EU-Norway next year but will not Q20 Mr Carmichael: But why was fisheries put in that? be in the room for co-ordination. There is some uncertainty Barrie Deas: The whole acquis—the whole body of about how that will work in practice, and we need EU law, including fisheries law—applies. As much as we clarity on that. I agree with Bertie that an implication of would have liked to sidestep that, the Government the withdrawal agreement is that in autumn or made a calculation that that was not available or realistic. December 2020, there will be bilateral or trilateral Bertie Armstrong: Clearly the industry was not in the negotiations with Norway that will set the quotas, quota room when that happened. As I understand it, there shares and access arrangements for 2021. That is my would have been no agreement and it would have been understanding. stuck with four or five nations. Of the 27, half do not have a coastline. These pressures apply to a maximum Q16 Mr Carmichael: That is in 2020, but not in 2019. of 11, but more like four or five, nations— Barrie Deas: No—in 2019 we are in the implementation period. It is slightly anomalous that there is a lack of Q21 Mr Carmichael: So it was in order to get a deal? clarity about how that will work in practice. It is governed by a good faith clause for both parties, but it is still The Chair: Mr Carmichael, that is your last question. uncertain how that would work in practice. Weare all drifting beyond the Bill. Wehave four questioners and 10 minutes to get them in. Q17 Mr Carmichael: For the purposes of what would Bertie Armstrong: There is certainly a matter of relevance, currently be the divvying up of whatever comes out of although it remains subjective rather than objective. If the EU-Norway arrangements, what is our status at the we become dish of the day, there will be a time when we December Council in 2020? Are we there as the start of are a sovereign state with a complete grip on what a new bilateral—is that how you understand it? happens in our waters. It would therefore be unwise for Bertie Armstrong: I know for a fact that you understand short-term gain to be exacted at that stage, providing this, Mr Carmichael, but there is a point of principle that the Government of the day retained their backbone. that is worth mentioning. The December Council is something of a distortion of importance,because effectively Mr Carmichael: Indeed. it takes the pie piece—the amount of opportunity that was agreed in coastal states arrangements for the EU—and, Q22 Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP): in terms of relative stability, it fiddles about with the Mr Armstrong, the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation details and ratifies them. That will be of no real interest suggests that you represent every owner and skipper to us in times to come. This year it will be of extreme from Solway to Shetland. For the record, could you tell importance, but in times to come we will be involved in us who you represent and about the diversity of the the rather more important division of the north-east fishing community in Scotland? Atlantic fishing opportunity. As an owner of a very Bertie Armstrong: We represent the 450 businesses significant piece of the north-east Atlantic, we will that are responsible for most of the quota species. For genuinely be at the top table, to use a hackneyed phrase. the non-quota species, a large number of vessels are one The December Council is not any form of top table; it is handed or two handed. They belong to no associations— arm wrestling inside the EU for an already settled that is not being dismissive, but if you are a one-handed fishing opportunity. fisherman, you do not have much time for politicking. We have the whole of the Shetland Shellfish Management Q18 Mr Carmichael: We anticipate that this year we Organisation and the whole of the Orkney Fisheries will have a difficult December Council, given the science Association, but not the Western Isles Fisherman’s and what we know about North sea cod and other Association or some of the smaller associations down species. In my experience, these years very rarely come in the Clyde. along in isolation. I think the anxiety is about how we are able to influence these decisions. The decisions that Q23 Brendan O’Hara: Clause 1(7) on page 2 and were made back in 2002 and 2003 about cod stocks in clause 10 on page 6 talk about the location of home the North sea were central to the prosperity of the fleet. ports and how licences will be administered by Scottish If we are not at the table in 2019 and 2020, how will we Ministers or by a Northern Ireland department. As avoid becoming the dish of the day? regards your membership, how important is it that, Barrie Deas: Those concerns have to be there for the within the confines of the Bill, there is a level-playing negotiations in 2019 for 2020. Science is going to be the field across the United Kingdom post-Brexit, and that basis of the decisions on total allowable catches. There one part of the UK is not given a competitive advantage is the good faith clause, but we do not understand the over another in fishing? mechanics of how the UK will be consulted as we have Bertie Armstrong: I am not seeing much in the Bill been promised. However, 2020 for 2021 is an entirely that awards that. Be aware of the stats here—I am different scenario: all other things being equal, the UK about to make a statement of fact, not opinion. About will be negotiating as an independent coastal state and 60% to 65% of the UK’s fish landings by volume and will carry a great deal more political weight as a result. value come from the Scottish fleet. That is just an observation of the facts. With access to waters, the Q19 Mr Carmichael: Have the Government ever given position of the ports, where the fish live, and a couple of you any explanation of why they put us in this position decades of contracting and rationalising the industry, in the first place? They were not going to give in, but we have ended up with quite a lot of concentration in then they gave in. Did they tell you why? the core areas of Scotland. 15 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 16

I am aware—I am very concerned—that there should Q27 Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/ be a level-playing field and no prejudice against any Co-op): Clause 19 sets out that the Secretary of State area, but I am comforted by the fact that business will must consult devolved Administrations and the Marine take care of that, as long as there is nothing obstructive. Management Organisation when setting total levels of The whole point of the future is the increased economic catches and days at sea. However, the clause does not activity, which business will take care of. define the manner or rigour of that consultation, or indeed any other form of consultation with stakeholders Q24 Brendan O’Hara: So you have no concerns that or interested parties. Do you feel that there could be an any one part of the United Kingdom may be given a opportunity to enhance the Bill and clause 19 with competitive advantage against another post-Brexit? further definition of what that should entail? Bertie Armstrong: It would be helpful if you framed Barrie Deas: That relates to the idea of an advisory the question as to which part you think is prejudicial. council to run new ideas through a panel of experts—people who understand the complexities and nuances. It would Q25 Brendan O’Hara: If Northern Ireland were given be advisory. We understand that the job of Ministers preferential treatment ahead of Scotland, Wales and an and fisheries managers is to manage, but we think that English fleet. an advisory council could add something, as it does in Bertie Armstrong: We are back to the backstop, and other countries—I would certainly recommend looking that will kick in only if the backstop kicks in. Anybody’s at the Australian model. It could make recommendations guess around this room is as good as anybody else’s and provide advice on new legislation coming through. guess. That is one of the areas where the Bill could be tweaked in the right direction. The Chair: We are drifting a little. I am keen to Bertie Armstrong: In that clause, there is the little extract maximum benefit from our witnesses. We have anomaly of adding the Marine Management Organisation. three more questioners, so I will move on, if you do not It is an organisation good and true, no doubt, but if you mind, Brendan. are talking about, as Barrie has described, a council of administrations, it is rather an ill fit for the MMO. Q26 Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con): Perhaps it would be a technical adviser. Gentlemen, notwithstanding the desire to have a date of sovereignty in the Bill, which may or may not be possible, Barrie Deas: To build on that point, when you see in general terms are you content with the Bill? that consent is required from the Secretary of State, Ministers for Scotland, for Northern Ireland and for Barrie Deas: Yes, I think the broad thrust of the Bill Wales, and then the MMO, which is the delivery arm of goes in the right direction. We have some concerns the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, about particular aspects of it, but the Bill is necessary in it does seem, as Bertie says, an anomalous situation. order to give Ministers the power to set quotas, albeit in the context of international negotiations, to negotiate The Chair: I apologise to the remaining questioners, as an independent coastal state, to control access to our whom we have not been able to squeeze in. We have run waters, and, on that basis, to renegotiate our quota out of time, bar a few seconds, so I shall simply say shares. That is the main thrust of the Bill, and that is thank you very much to both witnesses for extremely really important. useful evidence that will greatly add to our consideration We also completely understand, having been within of the Bill next week. Thank you very much for taking the common fisheries policy for so long and having had the time and trouble to come and give evidence to us direct experience, that top-down, over-centralised this morning. management is not effective, sustainable management. We need the flexibility to adapt. Fisheries seem to be particularly prone to unintended consequences; you Examination of Witness think you are doing one thing, and it generates perverse Andrew Kuyk gave evidence. outcomes. We need to be able to address those in an agile, very prompt fashion, and the Bill contains those 10.25 am delegated powers. I know that there are political concerns Q28 The Chair: With no further ado, I welcome the about Henry VIII powers, and so on. I think those are representative of the UK Seafood Industry Alliance. valid concerns. As parliamentarians, you have a role in Will you kindly introduce yourself for the record? scrutinising secondary legislation. Andrew Kuyk: Thank you, Mr Gray. My name is We would also like to see an advisory council. They Andrew Kuyk. I am director general of the Provision have something similar in Australia. They actually have Trade Federation, which is a food trade association, but something similar within the common fisheries policy, as part of that role, I also represent the UK Seafood not that we would necessarily want to follow that particular Industry Alliance, which represents UK fish processors model. An advisory council of people with experience and traders. of the industry, who understand the complexities of a highly diverse, complex industry, would be a kind of Q29 George Eustice: We heard earlier about the filter for legislation. We would like that counterweight, problems with relative stability as a sharing basis. I as well as parliamentary scrutiny, but we absolutely know that in a former life you had a role in the Department understand the need for delegated powers. for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when things Bertie Armstrong: We met, discussed and agreed that such as relative stability were set up and principles such as the common position for the two main federations in as the Hague preference were established. Could you the UK. We would be a little more concerned about explain to the Committee the genesis of the existing excessive additions to the Bill, rather than dissatisfied relative stability shares and why the UK ended up with with the Bill as it stands. a smaller share than has seemed appropriate? 17 Public Bill Committee 4 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 18

Andrew Kuyk: How long have you got? caught by UK vessels is exported, mainly to the EU. The reasons for that are largely to do with consumer The Chair: We have until 10.55, so let us try to keep it choice. The main species consumed in the UK are cod, brief. salmon, haddock, tuna, shrimps and prawns. Obviously, Andrew Kuyk: This is going back into history. At the the tuna and most of the shrimps and prawns are not time, I was first secretary, fisheries, in the UK permanent available in UK or EU waters. The salmon is largely representation in Brussels, so I was the desk officer for aquaculture. On species such as cod and haddock, we these negotiations. I will not go into it in too much are very far from self-sufficient. Our total consumption detail, but Committee members may recall that we had of cod in the UK is about three times the total EU TAC already joined the EU by that stage. The common for cod, so we are about 10% self-sufficient in cod. fisheries policy had to wait another four or five years; it We import that raw material because that is the was a lengthy and difficult negotiation. The background market demand. A lot of that does not come from the was that, at the time we joined, we did not have an EU, but a lot of it comes via the EU, which complicates exclusive 200-mile zone, although the concept existed. the trade statistics. The Minister has referred to the We joined the EU and became subject to what was autonomous tariff quota system—ATQs. This system is known as the common pond. There was equal access a regulation that normally runs for three years.It recognises within that, save for some coastal rights under the that the EU, not just the UK, is a deficit market in fish. London convention. Also, prior to the CFP, fisheries That relativity—about two thirds imports—applies to were managed by things such as the North East Atlantic the EU market as a whole, so the EU recognises that the Fisheries Commission—NEAFC. There was a concept fish to meet consumer need are not available under its of high seas and so on. Total allowable catches and jurisdiction. Although there is an external tariff, it has quotas, as a management instrument, were familiar, but these autonomous tariff quotas. Specified quantities they were not done within the EU, so we had to invent are admitted, either tariff-free or at a reduced tariff, and that system. they are negotiated on a three-yearly basis. We are just The reason why there is an apparent imbalance in about to conclude the next agreement, which will run some of the quota shares is that the negotiation was for only two years, rather than three. done with reference to what was called track record, Most of those imports come in through some kind of which was the catches historically taken by the various preferential arrangement. We pay some tariffs on some component parts of the EU fleet. Prior to our joining, of them. There is the complication of trans-shipment most of the fish that were relevant to our domestic through the EU; some of those are landed in, say, market were fished off countries such as Iceland and Rotterdam, Bremerhaven or wherever and then come to Norway. We had what then was our distant water fleet— us as part of free circulation within the single market. large vessels based in Hull and Grimsby that went quite In summary, imports come through a variety of far afield to get the main species on which our market arrangements; some come as a result of the EU-Norway depended. Therefore, our track record was on those agreement. Various agreements are in place that give us vessels, in waters that were not immediately covered by the benefit of significant tariff reductions. Those are the EU common pond. necessary, because otherwise we would not be able to Also at the time—this is going back some 30 years—there supply market demand in the UK. was not— Q31 George Eustice: Finally, leaving aside shellfish The Chair: Mr Kuyk, I am keeping a close eye on the and some of the species that we export for which tariffs clock and would be most grateful if you would restrict are quite low, and looking specifically at your members your remarks as much as you can. who predominantly process highly processed cod products, Andrew Kuyk: I will get there quickly now. The what proportion of their production is re-exported to smaller vessels were not subject to logbooks and recording the EU, and what proportion of those highly processed of catches. Our track record was good in relation to the products is sold in the UK? bigger vessels, and the track record used for the decisions Andrew Kuyk: I am not sure I would use the term was going back 10 or 20 years prior to 1980. The track “highly processed”. Quite a lot of it is things such as record for the smaller vessels was not so good. Therefore, bread-crumbs; I do not know whether you regard that one of the reasons why the quota shares do not necessarily as a high degree of processing. It is to do with the reflect current realities is that they were backward-looking presentation. These are consumer-ready, convenience and based on partial data. That is the short answer to products—fillets with some kind of coating. There is a your question, Minister. growing line in ready meals—a meal opportunity: a fish product with vegetables and a sauce, and so on. Most of Q30 George Eustice: Thank you. Now I fast-forward those imports are for domestic consumption, because to your current role. Most of your members import we are a deficit market. There is some re-export. I do large quantities of cod, predominantly, from Iceland, not have an exact figure, but I would imagine it is Norway and even, I think, Russia, Finland and the something like 10% or 15%—not more than that. The Barents sea. Can you explain the nature of the preferential vast majority is to supply our domestic market. trade agreements we have with Iceland and Norway, and also the process of autonomous tariff rate quotas for other countries? Q32 Luke Pollard: The Bill does not talk very much Andrew Kuyk: Briefly, for the benefit of the Committee, about processing. If we were to include an economic we have what I term the supply paradox. Roughly two link for anyone catching fish under a UK quota, where thirds of what we eat in this country, we import, and a more fish was landed in the UK ports, what would the lot of that is not from the EU. Some 80% of what is impact of that be on the UK processing sector? 19 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 20

Andrew Kuyk: It is difficult to say. Again, without of the Bill is that it is a piece of framework legislation, going too much into the history, we used to have what I which gives the Government the necessary tools to would call an end-to-end processing industry in the manage fisheries in the UK and the marine environment, UK, where a whole wet fish would go in one end of the in a changed legal situation where we become a sovereign factory and a product would come out of the other. coastal state. It is the tool box for the management of Over the years,that has become rationalised and specialised, fisheries. It does not address those issues. Do we have and a lot of that first-stage processing now happens concerns about those issues? Yes, we do, but I am not elsewhere. Some of it happens on board vessels, on sure that the Bill is the appropriate place for those factory ships. Some fish—I know this sounds anomalous, concerns to be addressed. but it is sheer market economics—are sent to places such as China, where they are filleted, and come back as Q34 Luke Pollard: I was just going to say that I think frozen blocks. The raw material for quite a lot of our you are underselling the success story of British fish processing industry at the moment is a pre-prepared processing. I think the vast majority of our jobs in product—it is not the fish straight from the boat. fishing are in processing. If more fish were landed, there That could be a problem on two or three different would be a commensurate increase in potential jobs in levels. It is a problem and an opportunity. Clearly, if processing. Earlier, you mentioned statistics about how there was more domestic supply available, the UK much fish we export and how much fish we import, processing industry would do its best to cope with that, because there does seem to be an imbalance there. I do but that would require investment. I was listening to the not think it is widely understood that we mainly export earlier session. The front end of the processing factory the fish we catch and import the fish we eat. does exist on a smaller scale in some parts of the Andrew Kuyk: It is because they are not the same country,but for the people who supply the vast volumes—a species. sort of 80:20 thing—that front end, the lines of people physically filleting the fish and so on, does not exist any Q35 Luke Pollard: Exactly.What are the complications? more. To reinvent that, you would need the labour, What situations would you want referenced in the Bill which I know is a tangential issue not to do with the to ensure that there is easy and free trade in those fish Fisheries Bill, but it is a broader issue for the food products? I imagine that any tariff could have quite an industry in relation to Brexit—the supply of labour—and impact on the level of trade across our boundary. Is you need the skill. You need both the people and the there anything that needs to be included in the Bill to skill, and you would need some physical investment in give fish processors the confidence that they need to capacity, more storage, more chilling and so on. invest in more facilities in UK ports and elsewhere? It is not as if there is under-utilised capacity. It is a Andrew Kuyk: I am not a parliamentary draughtsman, function of modern business that capacity matches and I am not sure it is relevant to the subject of the Bill. throughput and the market, so there is not excess processing I suppose it would be possible for the Government to capacity waiting for new supplies of fish. It would have include a trade section in the Bill. One of the things that to be put in place. It would require money, people and unites the people I represent and your previous witnesses skills. To invest the money, you would need a sound is that we do not think there should be a link between business case that could give you a projection of what trade, access to waters and quotas. We think those are your price and what your market share would be. The separate issues. I know, Mr Gray, that you do not want price, critically, would depend on what your broader to go too near Brexit and the backstop, but there is a trading relationship was—tariffs and currency—and relevance, given that in the backstop you have a carve-out what the competition was. It is quite a complex jigsaw, in article 6 of the Northern Ireland protocol, which but the short answer is that there is not significant exempts fish and fishery products from the single customs under-utilised capacity that, at the flick of a switch, territory that would otherwise apply in the backstop, so could suddenly cope with an influx of domestically there is the potential for tariffs to be imposed on UK caught fish. exports. To recap, the main things we catch are things like Luke Pollard: Thank you. I think you are underselling herring, mackerel and shellfish, for which there is not the success story. great demand on our domestic market—people prefer cod, tuna and salmon—but there is a good market in The Chair: Before we go on, Mr Grant looks as if he the EU. In that succession of hypotheses if there is not has a question on this particular point. an agreement and we come into the backstop, UK exports would potentially face significant tariff barriers. Q33 Bill Grant: The processing industry accounts for There may be opportunities elsewhere, but that would more than 50% of those employed in the fishing industry have a significant impact on the trade. I genuinely do as a whole. Is there anything in the Bill that gives you not know how you would guard against that in the concern that the security of those 14,000-plus jobs Fisheries Bill. could be affected, or is there anything that gives you In terms of our access to the raw materials we need, concern about the supply of fish, which is essential to we have the ATQ system and the benefit of some EU secure the jobs? Is there anything in the Bill that concerns trade agreements with third countries. Again, I do not you in relation to job security and the security of the know how you make a reserve carve-out and preserve supply of fish? that position in the Fisheries Bill. That would be our Andrew Kuyk: I think not, in the sense that those are aspiration. As processors, we want free and frictionless not areas that are covered in the Bill. It does not cover trade, like any other part of the food industry. That is trading relationships or the kinds of issues that you are our headline message: free and frictionless trade. The raising. From our point of view, is that a significant deal on the table—the political declaration—holds out omission? Not necessarily, because my understanding the prospect of free trade. That would be very good. 21 Public Bill Committee 4 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 22

The friction will depend on the degree of regulatory Government chose to make grants available to do that, alignment. Fish fall into the category of products of clearly that would help the business case for those kinds animal origin, to which certain special rules apply in the of investment. EU. As a third country, things would have to go through a border inspection post, and so on. Clearly, for a highly Q40 David Duguid: I have anecdotal evidence that perishable fresh product, any increase in the degree of Dutch fishermen are currently catching about 80% of inspection control is potentially detrimental if it leads their small pelagic species in UK waters, and about to delay.Even if the product is not spoiled, its commercial 90% of that is being exported, with minimal processing, quality and its value will have reduced. straight to west Africa. What can we do in this country to essentially cut out the middleman and make sure that The Chair: We have 10 minutes for five questions. Let the UK fleet is able to catch, land and export straight to us be quick. these third countries? Andrew Kuyk: Again, that is straying outside my territory as representing processors and traders. Your Q36 Peter Aldous: You said that 80% of our exports previous witnesses would be involved in that. Without go to the EU. going into the history too much, the Committee will be Andrew Kuyk: We export 80% of what we catch. The generally aware of the ability of people to buy quota majority of that goes to the EU. and so on; it was freely sold and it was freely acquired. That is the way that the market has operated up until Q37 Peter Aldous: Is there any scope for increasing now. Clearly, were more quota available it would be exports outside the EU? possible for the UK fleet to seek to exploit these value Andrew Kuyk: That is not really within my area of added opportunities and, as you say, to cut out the responsibility, because we are processors and traders. middleman. Quite a lot of that is exported as fish; it is not processed. It would not necessarily be my members who would You could argue from first principles that, as a UK be involved in that at the outset, because that it is not industry, we should be getting more added value from business that we are currently involved in. The people that. Some of that fish is landed directly in EU ports. who export those pelagics are not my members; it is the Although there is a market for that, you could argue large pelagic companies on the catching side of the that there would be greater economic benefit if we industry.It is done with minimal processing and minimal could get some of that value added and export. value added. I think that is a missed opportunity for There clearly are markets elsewhere in the world. We UK plc, but I am not sure how much you can legislate are a deficit market. Just a bit of propaganda for the for that. If you provide a framework that is conducive fish industry: fish is a healthy, nutritious product, and is to that, then clearly business will step in with the right a renewable resource if managed properly and sustainability. incentives and will do its best to take advantage of There are a lot of people in the world for whom fish is those possibilities. their sole source of protein. There is a big demand for fish in the global trade, so there will be opportunities Q41 David Duguid: Going back to what you said there, but as in any kind of market, it depends on how earlier about how the majority of our exports go to the competitive you are. For the sorts of export that we EU, do you have any data on how much we export to have at the moment, which are predominantly fresh the EU that is just minimally processed and further exports, not processed products, you have obvious barriers exported to third countries? of distance. You would have to do something to make it Andrew Kuyk: I do not have an exact figure, but I a product that you could sell further afield. There is imagine that a clear majority of that would have no or potential there, but going back to my earlier point it minimal processing. would require investment and to make the investment there has to be a sound business case. Q42 Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con): You mentioned earlier the import of cod from the Barents sea, Russia, Q38 Mr Sweeney: The Faroe Isles require boats fishing which is obviously outside the EU and the European in their waters to land their catches in their ports, economic area. What sort of friction is there in bringing therefore benefitting their fish processing industry. Do that into the UK market, in comparison with what you envisage similar provisions in the Bill to make that might be experienced in the future. arrangement for Scottish ports? Andrew Kuyk: Virtually none, in the sense that quite Andrew Kuyk: I think that harks back to an earlier a lot of this stuff is transshipped through other countries, question. There is no surplus processing capacity to do as I have already explained. If it comes in to us through that at the moment. You could legislate for what people the tunnel there is no friction at all, as it has already have to do, in terms of where they land things, but I do entered the single market, so any formalities—border not think you can legislate for how the processing inspection and any controls—have taken place elsewhere. industry or investors would respond to that opportunity. The same is true of some fish that comes from Norway; They might or they might not. some of that comes overland into Sweden on lorries. It is not quite just-in-time in the same sense as in the automotive industry, but there is a narrow window— Q39 Mr Sweeney: As a supplementary, clause 28 something like 48 hours maximum—for getting those mentions a grant scheme, which may be an opportunity. lorries through and into the UK market. At the moment, Andrew Kuyk: Clearly, that would help solve the that is frictionless. investment problem. Again, it would not be for me to pronounce on the use of public funds in that way for a Q43 Jeremy Lefroy: Do we import any fish from particular sector of a particular industry, but if the outside EU markets? 23 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 24

Andrew Kuyk: Yes, and we have some stuff that is old friend of mine, and Paul Trebilcock from the UK landed directly in the UK. There are well tried and Association of Fish Producer Organisations. Mr Salter trusted systems, and any necessary adaptations have is from the Angling Trust. Perhaps you could kindly already taken place. We have the facilities to cope with introduce yourselves briefly for the record. fish that are landed directly in the UK—from Norway, Martin Salter: Thank you, Mr Gray—I miss our Iceland or anywhere else—because that is established late-night train journeys back to Swindon. My name is trade. It is well run-in, it functions smoothly and it is Martin Salter, formerly of this parish and now head of not a problem. My general answer is that at the moment campaigns for the Angling Trust, the national representative we do not have friction either through the EU route or body for all forms of recreational fishing. That includes directly. There are controls and rules that have to be sea angling, which according to figures from the Department complied with, but there are tried and trusted systems. for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is an industry The relevant capacities for handling at ports and for in its own right worth £2 billion to the UK economy, storage are all there for existing trade. generating 20,000 jobs and supporting thousands of coastal businesses. Q44 Luke Pollard: I have a quick question. On supply One of the reasons we were very keen to give evidence chain fairness, there have been concerns in the media before you is that, despite the warm words from Ministers about the involvement of modern slavery in the employment and in the White Paper, recreational sea angling is not practices of foreign food processors. Can you give a mentioned in the Bill, and we are hoping that you will sense of what the UK processing sector is doing to put that right. ensure that no fish in our system are processed or Paul Trebilcock: I am Paul Trebilcock, chairman of caught using methods of modern slavery? the UK Association of Fish Producer Organisations. Andrew Kuyk: We certainly recognise that that is an All producer organisations in England, Wales and Northern issue in global supply chains. I think that both our Ireland are in our membership. Our members account members and our retail customers do their utmost for more than 40% by value of fish and shellfish landings through due diligence and audits to try to ensure that in the UK. our own supply chains do not suffer from that. This is an issue in the textile industry and others; it is not Q46 George Eustice: I will start with a question for restricted to the food industry. Part of our industry’s Paul Trebilcock. The very first clause of the Bill sets out overall corporate responsibility is not just sustainability a number of important environmental targets for the of the resource, but ethics and employment practices. sustainable harvest of our marine environment. In the That is part of the sustainability agenda of all major south-west we have particular challenges with maximum processors and retailers, and we do everything that we sustainable yields in a mixed fishery. Would you explain, can to ensure that poor practice is eliminated. from the point of view of fishermen in the south-west, the types of challenge we have as we try to abide by that Q45 Luke Pollard: So an objective in the Bill to target? ensure supply chain fairness—to ensure that there are Paul Trebilcock: I should probably say at the outset no practices like modern slavery going on—would not that the fishing industry clearly has an interest and a be an obstacle to your sector operating? priority to ensure the long-term sustainability of all our Andrew Kuyk: No. As you said, there is already fisheries. Sustainability is at the very core of what we modern slavery legislation. Companies over a certain want from the Bill and the UK acting as an independent size must have policies in place. We would have no coastal state. However, in the words of Karl O’Brien at difficulty with that. Obviously there are some practical the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture issues in supply chains in terms of tracing things back Science, the MSY concept is scientifically illiterate. To and assigning responsibility. On the aquaculture side— have all stocks at MSY at a particular point in time is without going off at too much of a tangent—the fish just not possible. In particular, in ultra-mixed fisheries, feed might come from less well-regulated fisheries, but as we have in the south-west, there will always be ups those are known problems in the industry and people and downs and natural variants. We are trying to manage are doing all in their power to tackle them, including a dynamic natural resource. using the commercial power not to source from areas The concept of MSY is a good principle. Working where there is dubious practice. There is also the EU towards MSY proxies on the key driver stocks is probably regulation on illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, more practical than what we have at the moment, with which I know we will wish to continue. There is no an arbitrary legally binding commitment in the common social chapter in IUU, but that is part of the approach fisheries policy that gives us some perverse pieces of to ensure that things are sustainably and ethically sourced. advice. Zero TACs on stocks does not mean they will not be caught in mixed fisheries; it just means they are The Chair: Mr Kuyk, I thank you very much for your not taken account of in practical fisheries management. most learned, well informed and well expressed evidence, A far better way would be to have the MSY framework which will be extremely useful to the Committee. as an aspiration and to move towards it, and wherever possible have as many stocks as possible in that MSY Examination of Witnesses range. Paul Trebilcock and Martin Salter gave evidence. Q47 George Eustice: Some people say we can learn from Norway, which uses MSY and other approaches, 10.54 am too. Is there anything you think we can learn from that? The Chair: It is a great pleasure to welcome back Paul Trebilcock: As I say, I think there are lessons to Mr Martin Salter, who was the Member of Parliament be learned from independent coastal member states for Reading West for a number of years and is a dear such as Norway. Its approach to fisheries management 25 Public Bill Committee 4 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 26 takes the whole ecosystem into account and does not Conservation and Management Act 1976 puts a statutory try just to manage stock on arbitrary numbers. There duty on the eight regional fishery councils to take are lessons to be learned, such as using proxies or other action to rebuild fish stocks. indicators to ensure that the whole mix of stocks is You asked what we are seeking. We would like to see going in the right direction and perhaps using the MSY on the face of the Bill a binding duty for Ministers to set as the driver for some of the key economic stocks. It is total allowable catch limits in line with scientifically about trying to take into account that we are trying to recommended evidence, rather than this dreadful horse manage a dynamic natural resource rather than something trading that takes place every year at the European that neatly obeys some scientific modelling. Fisheries Council, which is no model of sustainable fisheries management at all. Q48 George Eustice: Mr Salter, I feel you are a bit glass half empty about the Bill. Clause 28(1)(e), which I Q50 George Eustice: Do you not think that that is am sure you have read, creates the powers to give there in the very first clause of the Bill, in subsection (3), financial assistance for which states that the “precautionary objective” is to ensure that “living marine biological resources” are “the promotion or development of recreational fishing.” exploited in such a way that they are harvested That is in the Bill and it is the first time ever that we “above biomass levels capable of producing maximum sustainable have created power to give financial assistance to angling. yield.” Is that something you welcome? There is a legal commitment there. Martin Salter: What do you think, Minister? With Martin Salter: There is, but there is a section in the due respect, it is obviously right and proper that the Bill about binding duties. Frankly, Minister, if I were in European maritime and fisheries fund makes some of it your shoes, I would want a binding duty. I would want available to the commercial sector. That is fine, but you to make it crystal clear that we are going to end the had six direct references in the White Paper to recreational discredited system that has operated under the common fishing. One of the great failures of the common fisheries fisheries policy and replace it with a legally backed duty policy is the failure to recognise recreational angling to fish at sustainable levels, just as we have legally as a legitimate stakeholder in the European fishery. backed targets for climate change and emissions. That is a failure of the CFP that the Bill could put right. You could do that, as we state in our evidence, by I am afraid I do not agree with Paul and my colleagues putting on the face of the Bill, “The UK Government in the commercial catching sector about having MSY as recognise recreational sea angling as a direct user and an aspiration. Minister,you have piloted bass conservation a legitimate stakeholder in the fishery.” That would be measures more than anybody else, but usually in the a win-win situation and it would add to the very face of opposition from the commercial catching sector. welcome news that we are going to have access to We have seen those conservation measures start to lead EMFF funding. to the rebuilding of bass stocks in the UK, which is really to be commended. We need to be bold, we need to be outliers, we need to learn from the best in the world, Q49 George Eustice: I have done this job for five years. and we need it clearly and simply on the face of the Bill. We meet every year—you are always invited ahead of the December Council, along with the commercial fishing Q51 Luke Pollard: Paul, at the moment, not all UK sector, to discuss our priorities. Bass has dominated fisheries are classed as sufficiently sustainable under discussions, certainly in the past three years. What is it the UK Government’s procurement policies for the that you seek for us to do with legal powers? Obviously Government to buy fish from them. What needs to the Bill is about legal powers. Are you saying you would happen for all UK fisheries to be classed as sustainable, like a licensing regime for recreational anglers? In what so the UK Government’s procurement policies enable way would you like us to legally recognise you? their fish to be bought and so we can be proud that all Martin Salter: We, like you, are looking forward to our fisheries are sustainable? saying goodbye to the annual horse trading that takes Paul Trebilcock: I think we are well down the track place at the Fisheries Council. It is worth putting on the on that one. Increasing numbers of UK fisheries have record that, despite the reform of the CFP, some 44% of either achieved accreditation and are now Marine total allowable catch limits were set above scientifically Stewardship Council-accredited, or are going through recommended limits. That process is far from perfect, the process. Growing numbers by volume and across and it is to be welcomed that the Bill and particularly Scotland, England and Northern Ireland are achieving the White Paper talk in terms of world-leading fisheries that. We are definitely moving in that direction, and the management. UK fishing industry is currently on a trajectory toward However, the point for politicians is that it is easy to having all its fisheries on a sustainable footing. Contrary claim that we are going to be an independent coastal to Martin’s view, I think the people who will deliver a state, but that does not deliver sustainable fisheries. sustainable fishery and fishing industry are the fishermen Senegal is an independent coastal state, and its fisheries themselves, those who are actively at sea. Currently, have been wiped out by super-trawlers, which are mainly there are elements of the common fisheries policy, European and have used their economic power to destroy whether it be relative stability shares, access arrangements the livelihoods of artisanal fishermen in independent or some of the technical measures, that hamper the coastal states. You will deliver sustainable fisheries travel toward that sustainability. management by having world-leading sustainable fisheries The UK operating as a genuine independent coastal policy. You will deliver that by looking at the very best state, with a practical and balanced fisheries policy that in the world. You should look at Norway and in particular takes into account all three pillars of sustainability—not at the United States. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery just the environmental but the social and economic 27 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 28 pillars—will in a very short space of time take the UK stock recovery programme.That stock recovery programme further down that track and ultimately toward our has seen the global quota increased to something like shared aspiration of all UK fisheries operating in a 38,000 tonnes. The EU gets 20,000 tonnes of that. sustainable way that will allow the UK Government Under ICCAT rules, the EU has to allocate a small and anybody else to buy with a clear conscience. proportion to a non-commercial interest—in other words, a recreational catch-and-release interest. The recreational Q52 Luke Pollard: Martin, I agree that this Bill seems sector only ever needs a very small part of that quota to undervalue the contribution of recreational angling because of the mortality rate for bluefin tuna. They are and fishing to the UK economy, especially our coastal big, tough animals, and the Canadian model shows that communities. You mentioned in your earlier remarks their mortality rate is around 3.6%. that recreational angling was a key stakeholder in other You can therefore have a very small quota in the UK jurisdictions around the world, with the US, Canada, and develop a thriving recreational tuna fishery. Given Australia and New Zealand all recognising recreational that the stock is slowly recovering, I should imagine angling as a key stakeholder. Do you think it should be that ICCAT would consider it far too early to start included as part of this Bill that recreational angling is a thinking about cranking up commercial exploitation in key stakeholder and should be regarded as such as the an area of the globe where it has not traditionally new fisheries policy is introduced? happened. A first run at tuna, if you like, really needs to Martin Salter: Yes, thank you for that. Weare promoting be a tightly licensed, properly controlled recreational an amendment that states: fishery that sits alongside the tagging programmes that “Promoting the sustainable development of public access to the World Wildlife Fund is currently doing in Sweden recreational fishing opportunities as both part of the catching and has also done in the Mediterranean. sector and the leisure and tourism industries, taking into account We need to know a lot more about these wonderful socio-economic factors.” creatures before we open the door to commercial What is interesting, if we look across the pond at exploitation, and the first stage would be to set up a America, is that they have fishery management policies recreational bluefin tuna fishery. That would generate on some stocks. It is worth bearing in mind that those an awful lot of money for the south-west and for fish stocks that are of interest to the recreational sector Ireland, and it would also mean—this is really important— do not clash desperately with the fish stocks that my that there would be anglers out there looking after this colleagues from the catching sector wish to exploit. We resource. Frankly, if stakeholders are not engaged in the are not interested in monkfish. We are not interested in fishery, bad people will do bad things to fish, as can be hake. We are not interested in crabs. We are not interested seen in the amount of illegal and black fish landings in lobsters. We are actually only interested in something that take place every year in this country. like 20% of fish landed into UK ports, so there is plenty of opportunity to look at sensible resource-sharing. In America, the striped bass fishery, which was driven Q54 Peter Aldous: I have a couple of questions. to extinction by commercial overfishing, has recovered Mr Salter, the highlight of the Second Reading debate as a result of tough conservation measures. They now was the vision of my hon. Friend the Member for have in place a resource-sharing operation where X Broxbourne (Mr Walker) for what recreational fishing percentage of the stock each year is reserved for the might do for local economies. Does recreational fishing recreational sector, which generates huge value for the need to be mentioned in the Bill for you to actually US economy. I can read the figures into the record if achieve that objective? you like. We have the potential to do that over here. We can look at certain fish stocks and say, “Do you know Mr Trebilcock, the Bill suggests an enhanced role for what? We could deliver better for UK plc by managing producer organisations. Are you fit for purpose—not that stock recreationally, or at least sharing a proportion your specific PO but generally—to fulfil such a role? At of that stock.” the beginning of last month the European Commission issued a reasoned opinion to the UK Government, which admittedly was about the management of POs Q53 Luke Pollard: On that point, we have had but in which there was a strong suggestion that you are representations about Cornish bluefin tuna effectively not doing what you should be. being allocated as a catch-and-release stock in future. That seems to be an area where there might be a tension Paul Trebilcock: You are absolutely right. The between recreational fishing and those commercial fishers Commission is certainly having a look and gave a who might want to catch and use that in the food supply reasoned opinion about POs functioning in the UK, chain. How can the tension be resolved for a stock such although that focused primarily on the compliance as that, and is there anything that needs to go in the Bill checks and the audit process by the Marine Management about how stocks could be better managed where there Organisation rather than the functioning of particular POs. is a potential clash? The short answer to your question is that, yes, I think Martin Salter: To be honest, Mr Pollard, I do not POs are fit for purpose. They are primarily fishermen’s think that is a matter for the Bill. We are looking organisations, entirely funded by fishermen and run by forward to meeting the Minister on bluefin tuna, although and for fishermen to manage quota, market and represent. we accept that he is pretty busy at the moment with two They have an extremely valuable role. Is there room to Bills going through Parliament. It is interesting that the improve as we enter a new regime? Absolutely.Clarification bluefin tuna is still on the endangered list, but the of a standard that all POs across the country must International Union for Conservation of Nature list deliver to, clarity of function and a greater understanding goes back to 2011, which predates the International from people outside POs of what they actually do Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas would all be really useful. 29 Public Bill Committee 4 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 30

Q55 Peter Aldous: If I could just come back on that, policy. What I think the Bill is really about is recognising you said POs function very much for the benefit of their that this is a new chapter for fisheries management. local communities. The Lowestoft producer organisation That is why I would urge you to support our amendment. in my constituency is made up of three or four accountants in the town but seven trawlers that never come near the The Chair: We have eight minutes for five questions. port. I do not think that that is functioning properly. Paul Trebilcock: No, but in response I argue that the Q56 Mr Carmichael: Paul, I think I agree with you Cornish PO, for example,is made up of around 150 different that the work of the POs is much undervalued, and fishermen, from small handliners catching mackerel frankly not much understood. Tell us a little bit about and bass through to beam trawlers. That is an example the work of POs in terms of trading quota across the of how a producer organisation might work. different parts of the UK. Paul Trebilcock: One of POs’ functions is quota In the Lowestoft example, the local boats sold to management. Part of that involves getting quota to Dutch interests, and there was an evolutionary process. those who need it—fishermen. That can be done through The Lowestoft PO functions as a producer organisation, the swaps and transfer mechanism, which has evolved securing maximum price for its members and that sort and developed over many years. Those can be swaps of thing. The local community in Lowestoft chose not involving different quota stocks swapped for those needed. to be part of that. It is important that, as we enter the It can be leasing, it can be gifting, it can be borrowing UK operating as an independent coastal state, all parts and it can be a form of banking—it is quite a sophisticated of the commercial industry are encouraged into producer and complex, or flexible, way of doing things, which organisations to ensure that they collectively understand enables it to be moved around to where it is needed, and drive the function and operation of producer wherever possible. organisations wherever they might be. You really have to be seeing the benefit. Perhaps that Q57 Mr Carmichael: What happens if the Administration is a role where UK Association of Fish Producer in one part of the UK, for example, tries to restrict Organisations and producer organisations in general quota trading among other parts? have not particularly done well in explaining to and Paul Trebilcock: At the moment we have the ability to educating people outside the PO movement what they trade across all parts of the devolved Administration actually do for fishing communities. The reach and quota tonnages on an annual basis, but it is not possible effect of producer organisations goes beyond their to move the fixed quota allocation units across membership in a lot of areas. I know that the south-west Administration borders, which hinders business and and east of England POs will help those in the local stops FQAs getting to where they need to be—fixed community who are not even in membership. I strongly quota allocation units for stocks off the south-west feel that producer organisations do a tremendous job probably are not needed in Shetland and vice versa. The around the country at the moment, and have the scope ability to rebalance that and free that movement would to build on that and do better things as we go into the be welcome, but at the moment there is free movement post-Brexit era. of quota tonnages across the devolved Administrations, Martin Salter: The highlight of any debate is the which is absolutely essential in getting quotas. contribution from the hon. Member for Broxbournero, as we know. Q58 Mr Carmichael: And the Bill as it stands would allow that to continue free of political interference? Do we need recreational fishing on the face of the Bill? It is great when the White Paper says: Paul Trebilcock: The Bill as it stands, as I read it, does allow for that. The risk, of course, is that there is the “We will consider how we can further integrate recreational signal towards devolution that means the different devolved angling within the new fisheries framework recognising the societal benefits of this activity and impacts on some stocks.” Administrations can, I think, as I read it, choose to have their own quota management rules. That is certainly a However—your constituents who fish recreationally will risk, but it does not appear on my reading to be a high tell you this—for many years they have been a bit sick risk. I would hope that all devolved Administrations and tired of seeing their recreational sea angling experience were trying to work collectively for the benefit of their fall off a cliff edge as stocks are overfished, and in some respective fishing industries and the UK as a whole, so cases get driven into parlous conditions. They feel that retaining flexibility and restoring the flexibility to move the recreational sector,despite its economic significance—its FQAs would be a welcome addition. significance for jobs and for coastal communities—is basically being left to feed on the crumbs that are left Jeremy Lefroy: Mr Salter, you rightly placed great over after commercial exploitation has had its whack. emphasis on sustainability. Given that in the UK we If you look at quality fishery management—at America export most of our fish and export most of what we and Magnuson-Stevens, and the New Zealand fishery catch, most of what is consumed comes from places in conservation legislation—shares are allocated. There is which as an independent coastal state we rightly have proper resource sharing. There is consideration in a no control over whether things are fished sustainably. sensible, grown-up, policy development way—recognising Do you see a role for consumer-type markings on the social and economic impacts of the exploitation of sustainability? Should that be left up to the industry or different stocks for different purposes. It might not just should there be some kind of legal basis so that we walk be for recreational fishing. It might be for diving or the walk on sustainability as well as talking the talk? other forms of tourism. It might be for conservation. Martin Salter: I think consumers welcome guidance. Yes, putting it on the face of the Bill would send a It is a matter for you whether you think legislation is strong signal, and would also mean a sea change from required, but when you walk into a supermarket you see the very discredited policies of the common fisheries a very complicated tapestry in front of you. 31 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 32

We have a very real problem with farmed salmon. come back to Parliament to change quotas and reallocate Our colleagues from Scotland recognise it as an important bass stocks from 30% recreational to 37% recreational, industry, but if it were a land industry it would be shut for example. That clearly would not work. They have to down tomorrow given the appalling levels of pollution. have that power, but that is why it is important that we The amount of sewage that is discharged as a result of put a duty in the Bill for Ministers to set sustainability the Scottish salmon farming industry into pristine marine targets. lochs is quite horrendous. The wrasse that are prevalent The point about resource sharing is more about achieving around Mr Pollard’s constituency in the south-west are an optimal economic and societal return for the stock. I slow-growing fish of very little commercial value—often find it very sad that protected species such as the grey the first fish that youngsters catch when they go sea mullet that we see swimming around harbours in the angling. They are being shipped live to the Scottish UK have very little commercial value, yet at times of salmon farming industry as a cleaner fish to eat the lice spawning aggregations we see entire year classes of those because that is cheaper. That is a double bad whammy. stocks totally netted, flooding the market and getting The industry really needs to improve its act—I notice less than £2 a kilo. This is a slow-growing species: a grey that Norway is moving a lot of its agriculture on to land mullet takes anything from 10 to 12 years to achieve a so that it can deal with the effluent. size that makes it a useful recreational angling target. It I still see an awful lot of people eating Scottish is a very poor use of that resource. As a good business farmed salmon. I am sure Scottish MPs welcome the calculation, which is the better use of that stock? Would fact that they do so, but in sustainability terms and reserving more of it for recreation give us more jobs for environmental terms it is a dreadful product—doubly the UK economy—more bites for our buck, if you like? dreadful because of its impact on sea fish down in the That is something that good fishery management practice south-west. Perhaps statutory guidance would be welcome, would seek to achieve. It will not be achieved by legislation or at least a level playing field in which agriculture was as such, but it could be assisted by a power and duty for forced to clean its act up as farming practices on land fishery Ministers. have been forced to do over the years. Alan Brown: That is a complication, because trying to The Chair: We are running out of time. May we have get a legislative framework that gives that certainty— a last question from Alan Brown? The Chair: Order. We are strictly limited by time and it is now 11.25 am, so I fear I have to call this evidence Q59 Alan Brown: Mr Salter, you seem to be talking session to an end. The Committee will meet again at about having a percentage of quotas ring-fenced for 2 pm. The Committee Room will be locked in the recreational angling. How would getting that into the meantime, so hon. Members may leave their papers here Bill work? Would it apply to future quotas to allow if they wish. I thank the witnesses very much indeed for expansion of the sector? their useful evidence. Martin Salter: We are not calling for that to be in the 11.25 am Bill; it would tie the Minister’s hands. If we are to adopt world-leading sustainable fishery management practice, The Chair adjourned the Committee without Question it is important that Ministers and decision makers are put (Standing Order No. 88). able to take the best scientific advice without having to Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT GENERAL COMMITTEES

Public Bill Committee

FISHERIES BILL

Second Sitting Tuesday 4 December 2018

(Afternoon)

CONTENTS Examination of witnesses. Adjourned till Thursday 6 December at half-past Eleven o’clock. Written evidence reported to the House.

PBC (Bill 278) 2017 - 2019 No proofs can be supplied. Corrections that Members suggest for the final version of the report should be clearly marked in a copy of the report—not telephoned—and must be received in the Editor’s Room, House of Commons,

not later than

Saturday 8 December 2018

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2018 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. 33 Public Bill Committee 4 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 34

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: JAMES GRAY,†DAVID HANSON

† Aldous, Peter (Waveney) (Con) † O’Hara, Brendan (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) † Brown, Alan (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP) Pennycook, Matthew (Greenwich and Woolwich) † Carmichael, Mr Alistair (Orkney and Shetland) (Lab) (LD) † Pollard, Luke (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) † Debbonaire, Thangam (Bristol West) (Lab) (Lab/Co-op) † Duguid, David (Banff and Buchan) (Con) † Smith, Owen (Pontypridd) (Lab) † Eustice, George (Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries † Stewart, Iain (Milton Keynes South) (Con) and Food) † Sweeney, Mr Paul (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co- † Grant, Bill (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con) op) † Hill, Mike (Hartlepool) (Lab) † Tracey, Craig (North Warwickshire) (Con) † Hollinrake, Kevin (Thirsk and Malton) (Con) † Jones, Mr Marcus (Nuneaton) (Con) Gail Poulton, Lis Gerhold, Committee Clerks † Lefroy, Jeremy (Stafford) (Con) † Morris, James (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con) † attended the Committee

Witnesses

Jerry Percy, Director, New Under Ten Fishermen’s Association

Phil Haslam, Director of Operations, Marine Management Organisation

Dr Tom Appleby, Director, Blue Marine Foundation

Aaron Brown, Fishing for Leave 35 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 36

Jerry Percy: You will not be surprised to hear that I Public Bill Committee am very supportive of the idea, having written the initial paper back in 2012. There is absolutely no doubt Tuesday 4 December 2018 about that. To put it into perspective, at the moment I gather that the UK has had infraction proceedings (Afternoon) served upon it by the European Commission for failure to manage and regulate its producer organisations adequately. I have not seen the detail but I would have [DAVID HANSON in the Chair] thought that the Commission was concerned that, despite the fact that the coastal PO—the producer organisation Fisheries Bill dedicated to the under-10-metre sector—has had official recognition by the UK Government and by the Commission Examination of Witness for over a year, we are still refused the ability to manage Jerry Percy gave evidence. the quota of our own members. This is particularly important with the run-up to the landings obligation, 2 pm where the ability to acquire quota retrospectively will be vital. The Chair: In this afternoon’s sitting we will first hear oral evidence from the New Under Ten Fishermen’s With the greatest respect to the Marine Management Association. Will the witness please introduce himself? Organisation, the disparity between the rationale for MMO management of quota and that by the producer Jerry Percy: Good afternoon. Thank you for inviting organisations, which are very focused on the commercial me. My name is Jeremy Percy. I am the director of the benefits of their particular members, is huge. This has New Under Ten Fishermen’sAssociation, the representative resulted in this year to date, for example, in only just body for 80% of the UK fleet, which operates from over 50% of the under-10-metre quota actually being vessels of less than 10 metres in length. fished, although that is down to a number of issues. One of them is undoubtedly the inflexibility in the The Chair: I shall hand over to the Minister for the Government trying to manage the quota, so I am first questions. particularly supportive of the coastal PO. I fail to understand why the Government have not Q60 The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food permitted us to have exactly the same rights—no more; (George Eustice): This morning we heard in evidence no fewer—as the existing POs. In fact, in your own that the principle of relative stability had served the words, Sir, in a letter earlier this year, you said that as inshore fleet particularly badly because of the data and soon as we had the correct infrastructure in place you the absences of data in the ’70s and ’80s when the track would like to see us going ahead and doing this sort of record was established. What are the key priorities of management. We have had the infrastructure in place the inshore sector as we leave the European Union and for a considerable amount of time, yet we are still set our own domestic policy? refused the ability to manage for the benefit of our Jerry Percy: We have long argued that relative members. stability needed to be reviewed, primarily because of the very bad deal that the under-10-metre sector has always had in the UK, not just because of relative Q62 George Eustice: But do you accept that there stability but because of the way in which quota was could be more than one PO covering the inshore sector? allocated back in the ’90s, when we did not have a seat Jerry Percy: I do not think so. at the table and therefore, despite being nearly 80% of the fleet, ended up with less than 2% of the overall UK Q63 George Eustice: You shouldn’t force everyone to quota. Relative stability really does need to change. join it if they don’t want to. Our priorities are, overall, to ensure that the under- 10-metre fleet—unquestionably, it has been massively Jerry Percy: No, there is always a choice about whether disenfranchised over the past few decades—comes out you join a producer organisation or not. To be honest, of it with a significantly increased allocation. We have there is absolutely no reason why any under-10 metre argued strongly that the current method for allocating vessel even slightly reliant on quota should not join the quota is unfair and discriminates against the under-10s, coastal PO. The membership fee is £1. More importantly, and of course the myriad coastal communities they however, membership should give those vessels access support. I have been in the fishing industry as a fishermen to far more flexible and user-oriented management of and in other roles off and on for over 40 years, and I their quota, rather than the current situation. have seen the demise of any number of coastal communities, the fleets that they supported and the people who Q64 George Eustice: I have two other points that we supported them over that period. Our main aim is to raised in the White Paper that I want your views on. ensure that the under-10s specifically get a fair deal First, do you think that the under-10-metre category is come the new horizon. still the right criteria to use, or should we look at other measures, such as engine capacity or the zone in which Q61 George Eustice: On management, we outlined a they fish, so that there would be a different way of number of ideas in the White Paper. Some have suggested defining the artisanal, small-scale fleet? Secondly, we that we should move away from a Marine Management have obviously had quite a lot of representations about Organisation-administered under-10-metre pool and the possibility of moving more to an effort-based regime towards a producer organisation for the inshore sector. for the inshore fleet rather than a quota system. What is What is your view of such an approach? your view of that? 37 Public Bill Committee 4 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 38

Jerry Percy: In response to your first question, there As I said, I go back far too many years in this is no doubt that the arbitrary under-10/over-10 metre business. In the 1990s, the Government said to the divider has been an unnecessary nuisance,frankly,especially over-10-metre vessels, “Go out and fish and record all as time has gone on. Yes, 20 or 30 years there was a very your catches, and we will take a three-year average and significant difference between what was in the ’90s a provide you with your fixed quota allocation—your much more artisanal fleet and today’s under-10 metre proportion of the overall UK cake.”Not surprisingly—the boats, which can be 9.99 metres and highly efficient. larger-scale representatives admitted this in the judicial One of the purposes of developing the coastal PO review I mentioned—they did ghost fishing. If you went initiative was that, rather like other examples one might out and caught 10 tonnes, you might put down 12 or think about in the current climate, you tend not to go to 14 tonnes just to make sure that you had good opportunities. war with people you are trading with, and there has I dare say that if I had been in that position I might have always been a difference of opinion between under-10s thought the same. The whole thing was predicated on a and over-10s and their POs. lie, frankly, and it has gone on ever since. Historical Losing the 10-metre measure in the fullness of time rights are really not an effective method, for any number would be a very positive step forward. Clearly, if you of reasons. look at the breakdown of the under-10s, which are The answer to your question, which we put forward some thousands of vessels, you see that the vast majority in our response to the Bill, is that clause 20 effectively are less than 8 metres in length, and again you can go takes in article 17 of the common fisheries policy. We down. So there is a strong argument for taking any boat suggest that should be amended so that quotas are up to 6 metres completely out of the quota system, allocated according to social and environmental criteria whether or not you replace it with something like effort and economic benefit for coastal communities. Some management. I can speak from experience. While a 80% of the under-10 metre fleet use passive rather than modern under-10 metre boat has a very significant mobile gear, so their environmental credentials are fishing capacity, far in excess of what it would have been better, and their economic credentials are certainly more 20 or 30 years ago, it remains the case that boats that significant. We would take our chances with everybody are less than 18 feet would really struggle to make any else, but that would provide a level playing field, irrespective significant impact on stocks. of size of vessel, and your allocation of the resource At the same time, we have said all the way along that would be based on environmental, social and economic although the effort management suggestion is ostensibly criteria. a fairer way of allocating access to the resource than Q66 Luke Pollard: This morning I asked about quota, with all its issues and problems, we really need to strengthening the economic link, so if you catch fish have a proper, full-scale and focused trial before anybody under a UK quota you should land at least half of it in could say unequivocally,“This would be the most effective a UK port. Can you explain where the under-10 fleet—the and efficient way forward.” small boats—mainly land their fish? Do they land it in UK ports already, or is a sizeable portion landed in Q65 Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) foreign countries? (Lab/Co-op): A real consensus is emerging around the Jerry Percy: No, it is almost exclusively landed into Bill that there should be more focus on giving more UK ports, although of course a very significant element quota—more fishing opportunities—to the smaller is then exported to markets in France, where our European boats. The question is about how we do it. From your neighbours tend to pay far more for it. I think it is point of view, what would be the best way within the relevant to mention at this point that, with all due Bill, and within the powers it contains, to encourage respect, we must not focus just on the quota issue, more fishing opportunities to be held by smaller boats, although that is vital because the quota has been so which generally speaking are the least impactful on the unfairly dealt out in the past. A very significant proportion environment and contribute more to their coastal of the under-10-metre fleet relies on non-quota species communities? such as cuttlefish, shellfish, lobster and crab, and Jerry Percy: There are two main answers to that they in turn rely on direct export. About 90% gets question. At the moment, despite the claims that we are exported, mainly to France and Spain, so the export going to be an independent coastal state and take back market is key. control, nearly 50% of the UK’s allocation of quota is Q67 Luke Pollard: Finally, I have a question that is held in foreign hands. Now, although a lot of that is the not about quotas—it is about marine safety. The Bill pelagic species, such as mackerel, herring and blue talks about our potentially being able to allocate quota whiting, nevertheless fish quota, whether we like it or that is drawn down from our EU friends in a slightly not—we do not—has become a commodity and gaining different manner from the FQA system we have at the more access and a fairer balance post Brexit, when the moment, and to apply different conditions to that. You Bill comes in, would be a particular opportunity. mentioned social, economic and environmental criteria There are opportunities. The Government have always potentially being some of those conditions. Marine been concerned that if you tried to repatriate quota, safety is an issue for many small boats because of the then you get a whole queue of people lining up for a pressures on those boats and the fact that the 10-metre judicial review, but it was clear from the judicial review limit has led to lots of dumpy boats with strength rather in 2012 and from legal advice subsequently that that is than stability.Would you give us a sense of the implications entirely practical. In fact, the Faroe Islands has just for the sector of amendments to the Bill that introduced instigated a similar sort of system. Rather than us a requirement for marine safety to be such a condition, arguing that one should rob Peter to pay Paul, it is at to ensure that people who go out to catch our fish are heart the allocation system that is at fault. It is based on safe, and tell us what the current safety levels are in the historical rights. sector? 39 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 40

Jerry Percy: Fishing, unfortunately, still carries the surprisingly, we disagree with that version and there is record as the most dangerous occupation in the world. I legal argument that they could do so, albeit slowly—that sit here having lost any number of friends and colleagues was said by the judge in a judicial review in 2012. over the years in pursuit of fish. I do not think having to I gave an answer earlier about moving the method of carry more fish should be a significant safety issue. It is allocation to become genuinely reliant on the social, going to be more relevant in terms of the forthcoming environmental and economic criteria, but I do say genuinely landings obligation, under which we can no longer because the UK Government are also already subject to discard any fish so we have to keep it all aboard. There article 17 of the common fisheries policy, which says are of course safety issues in that respect. something similar about allocating quota on those three The Sea Fish Industry Authority monitors and measures, criteria. The Government have argued that they meet and ensures that vessels are safe to go to sea. We are those criteria. I personally do not think that they even effectively talking about capsize as a result of overloading, remotely reach them in many respects. If we are going which is actually quite rare. It is perhaps more common to have a revised method of allocation, we need an in the pelagic fisheries, where a great bulk of fish is undertaking or to ensure that the Bill does what it says landed. For most small-scale fish fleets, I think fishermen on the tin. and the authorities would ensure that there was no safety issue. Even in my wildest dreams, safety has never Q70 Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP): Thank come to mind as being an issue if we had significantly you for coming along, Mr Percy. We have heard a lot more quota. I have never thought, “Oh, I’m going to about control of our own waters, but that has to be set catch too much fish and put myself at risk.” It does against access to markets, particularly for your members. happen—even now, with non-quota species, you never How confident are you that the interests of your members throw it back. are fully understood and fully protected by what is in the Bill? Q68 Luke Pollard: On that point, there seems to be Jerry Percy: I do not think it goes far enough in some universal agreement that personal locator beacons attached respects. Again, going back to the common fisheries to lifejackets are a good thing, but we know there is a point, the European maritime funding document says cost to fishermen of buying new lifejackets with PLBs that member states shall produce an action plan for the and registering them. Do you think that, if there were a development of their small-scale fleets. To date, we have specified improvement on marine safety in the Bill, not really seen anything to that extent, and there is lifejackets with PLBs could be one area that might nothing specific in the Bill in that respect. make a big improvement in marine safety? Our main concern is that, from a non-quota, shellfish Jerry Percy: Yes. Under the International Labour perspective—this is particularly reflected in our members Organisation’s convention 188, it is now mandatory for and colleagues in the Scottish Creel Fishermen’sFederation, fishermen to wear lifejackets unless the owner and/or who asked me to mention it, which I am more than skipper of the vessel can prove that he has sufficient happy to do—the whole business of hundreds, if not guards in place to ensure that fishermen do not go over well over 1,000, boats around the west coast especially, the side. and the east coast of Scotland to some extent, as well as I still go to sea quite often. I have a personal locator Wales and the rest of the UK, is based on seamless beacon that I bought myself for about £170. It will tell transport across the channel to our markets in France the rescue people where I am in the water anywhere in and Spain. Their main concern, of course, is that if any the world. It is cheap. As far as I understand it, European issues come up in a post-Brexit scenario where we seek funding would probably cover it because it is not a to take back control, not only will we get tariffs, which mandatory requirement, but surely, in terms of safety, it will make a big difference, but what is more, there will is a few pounds and it makes all the difference in the be non-tariff barriers in terms of the requirement for world. veterinary inspections of live shellfish. At the moment, the only two ports with those facilities are Dunkirk and Q69 Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con): My question is a Rotterdam, neither of which we use and neither of variation on the Opposition spokesman’s point. It is which, effectively, is a Channel port. To date, the French commonly recognised that the inshore fleet—the under- have not exactly been quick off the mark in building 10s—has had a raw deal as far as access to quota and new facilities in time for next year. fishing opportunities is concerned. The Bill is largely We are equally concerned about the fact that French based on the assumption that an increase in opportunities, fishermen, like French farmers, are renowned for taking as a result of taking back control of our waters, will very direct action should they feel that something has give us an uplift that will provide additional fishing upset them. You will remember that when the French opportunities for the inshore fleet. Do you think that farmers got upset about some aspect of Welsh lamb goes far enough, or do we need to look at something exports, they actually burned the lorries as they came bolder and more radical in terms of quota allocation or off the ferry in France. We are very concerned that if we fishing opportunities? do have an independent coastal state, and so on and so Jerry Percy: Our main concern is that the Bill is forth, it would kill that transport overnight. We only predicated on a successful fisheries Brexit, if I may call need a few hours’ delay for it to make all the difference it that, with a significant windfall of quota. Again, with in the world. the greatest respect, that would get the Government out of the hole that successive Governments have painted Q71 Brendan O’Hara: As the Member for Argyll and themselves into—if I may mix my metaphors—in that Bute, I take on board what you are saying. We are because there is only so much in the UK pie of quota, absolutely dependent on speed of access to market. they are somewhat hamstrung, in their view, in their What should we in this Committee be looking at over ability to reallocate more fairly and effectively. Not the next few weeks to ensure that vital shellfish market 41 Public Bill Committee 4 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 42 remains open and there is that speed of delivery from that our industry could be revived if fairer quotas were Loch Fyne to Madrid, for example? How do we ensure allocated. In your opinion, how many ports would that that is as seamless as possible, and that we keep benefit from an uplift in quotas? those vitally important markets? Jerry Percy: It is not just ports; there are harbours, Jerry Percy: There has to be a balance in the negotiations, coves, small areas and small coastal communities. It permitting some level of access to our waters—although would be dozens, if not hundreds. Going back 40-odd much less than currently—to ensure that we do not have years, I can remember fishing out of Lowestoft as a boy those non-tariff barriers, and that the facilities, including fisherman. There were myriad groups of small boats all on the French side, permit us to have that seamless the way up and down the coast, all providing a significant transport and that there are no road blocks in the benefit to those local communities. They may not show meantime. up on an economist’s spreadsheet, but those people are nevertheless paying their mortgage, taking their kids to Q72 David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con): On school and keeping the local infrastructure going. I am access to market versus access to waters, I think you not exaggerating; it could certainly be in the hundreds mentioned that there would be some exchange of access that we could revive and have some level of renaissance. for quota in any future arrangement. I presume you There is no doubt whatever. would agree that it is important that, as an independent coastal state, we have full control of that access so that Q76 Mike Hill: I get the impression from representatives we can use it as leverage. I hesitate to use the phrase from the larger fleets that they would oppose quota “bargaining chip”, but when we go into future annual redistribution. What arguments are there against that? negotiations, that has to be the leverage that we have. Jerry Percy: Well, why should they get more? To an Jerry Percy: Absolutely. We should start with a clean extent, it is based on greed. They already have approximately sheet: “We are an independent coastal state. That’s 98% of access to the quota, 50% of which is in foreign that.” We have a clean sheet and nobody has the right of hands, and a very significant proportion is in the hands access. Then there will inevitably be negotiations and of the five richest families in this country. It has become bargaining, and that balance is going to be extremely a fundamental nonsense and is grossly unfair socially, difficult, because Mr Macron, the Commission and environmentally and economically that nearly 80% of others have already made clear that they want the status the fleet in the UK has access to only 2% of the quota. quo to be the basis of any further negotiation. The The idea or argument that any additional quota should Government will have their work cut out to try to sort be allocated according to the existing fixed quota allocations that out. frankly is just grossly unfair. There is no sensible economic or social reason why that should be the case. Q73 David Duguid: Is there anything in this Bill that you think we should focus on, in order to add more power to our elbow in those future negotiations? The Chair: Does any other Government Member wish to ask a question? Jerry Percy: Our concern about the Bill is that there are a lot of phrases in it like “intend to”, “will consider”, “could include”, “aim to”, or “DEFRA intends to be”. Q77 Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con): Thank you very There is not a great deal of certainty about some much, Mr Hanson. I am very interested in what you elements on which we would have liked to have seen said about 50% of the quota being in foreign hands. more certainty and absolutely unequivocal statements: Is there an example, as far as you are aware, of any “We will do this.” The Government have made it clear EU coastal state that makes better use of the to date that they want an unequivocally clean sheet common fisheries policy for under-10 metres or smaller start. Whether we actually achieve that, of course, is boats, or is it just universal that it is dominated by large open to significant debate. vessels? Jerry Percy: You could say that across Europe the Q74 David Duguid: One more question, if I may. scene is dominated by the larger scale vessels. They have Going back to what you were saying earlier, I think more resources, more PR companies and more paid your exact words were along the lines of “Unfortunately, lobbyists; they were at the table when the rules were set, quotas have become a commodity.” With quotas being and we were not. It is only in recent times—NUTFA sellable and buyable, they are an asset, at least. If was created in 2006—that we have had actually had a quotas were to be more fairly distributed among the voice, and it takes time to build up. Hopefully with the smaller vessels in future, how would you avoid them just Fisheries Bill we are now on an equal footing with a becoming sellable commodities, bought up by others? seat at the table to ensure that the 80% of the fleet gets a Jerry Percy: There are a number of global examples fair deal. where you can retain quota as a national resource without allowing its sale. There obviously needs to be Q78 Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) flexibility in-year to move quota about, to ensure that (LD): Briefly, I want to explore with you how we get those people benefit from it. It is not an easy situation from here to there. As you say, there is a case for the to resolve, but there are global examples of what can be redistribution of quota. I am very interested in your done to ensure that almost half of our national resource thoughts about how you stop quota or other management is not in foreign hands, as has happened here. tools from becoming a tradeable commodity. As you say, some of these interests are big and well resourced. Q75 MikeHill (Hartlepool) (Lab): I represent Hartlepool, Rich people have good lawyers and a legitimate expectation which is one of those coastal communities affected long in their property rights. How do you get to the point ago by unfair quotas for under-10s. There is an argument where you can change the nature of quota? 43 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 44

Jerry Percy: By negotiation, but our response to the says. We understand where risk may arise and we have a Fisheries Bill was the first step. We are particularly level of intelligence that we apply to that, which can concerned that there is a suggestion within the Bill that make our operations targeted. an element of the UK’s fishing opportunities should be At sea, our surveillance is conducted by vessels from put up for auction. I struggle to understand the logic in the Royal Navy fishery protection squadron, which we that when the whole thrust is in terms of environmental, contract on an annual basis for a set number of hours. social and economic criteria. The Government Minister They conduct patrol and inspection routines on our identified the fact that we need to support and enhance behalf on the direction of the Newcastle fisheries the small-scale fleet for all the very tangible benefits monitoring centre ops room. The way that works that are there to be taken. I struggle to understand why operationally is that we direct them to conduct a you would then take a piece and sell it off to what will patrol in a certain area, we direct the outcomes we wish inevitably be those who already have financial resources. to see, and then it is down to the commanding officer in If we are going to have flexibility in the quota, we need the vessel to deliver them. On the number of ships to bring in new entrants and we need to make it attractive. that are available to us, both because of budgetary The cost of quota is one of those significant areas that restraint or constraint within the MMO and the availability keeps out new and young entrants. of Royal Navy vessels, the Royal Navy is this year providing 2,000 hours of patrol time within English Q79 Mr Carmichael: So the idea of auction does not waters. recommend itself to you. Q81 George Eustice: I understand that at the moment Jerry Percy: Anything but, sir. there are three offshore patrol vessels, two of which are normally on duty in English waters. Could you explain The Chair: We have 35 seconds if anyone has a what has taken place, as part of your planning over the one-word question and a one-word answer. Is there last year for enforcement after we leave the EU, to get anything else you wish to say to the Committee, Mr Percy? additional offshore patrol vessels from the Royal Navy? Jerry Percy: Thank you for the inquiry. The Fisheries What discussions have been had and what work has Bill gives us an opportunity. There are some failings in been done with Border Force on the ability to redeploy it, but we seriously look forward to conversations with some of its assets? Could you explain anything you have Government and others in that respect. I am grateful done by way of procuring aerial surveillance from, say, for the opportunity to talk to you. the coastguard service? Phil Haslam: As a result of the referendum and the fact that we will be becoming an independent coastal Examination of Witness state and taking back control of our waters in the Phil Haslam gave evidence. future, a risk-based analysis has been done of what could happen after that exit moment, and based on that 2.30 pm analysis we have identified increased risk across the The Chair: Good afternoon, Mr Haslam. For the piece. Our work has driven us to look at our current benefit of the Committee, could you introduce yourself surveillance levels and to judge what we will need to and your organisation? effectively enforce the integrity of the exclusive economic zone from the fisheries point of view. That has led us to Phil Haslam: Good afternoon. My name is Phil bid for an uplift in surface surveillance and within that Haslam and I am the operations director of the Marine to move away from having all our eggs in one basket in Management Organisation, which is an arm’s length relation to the Royal Navy, to come to a mixed economy body of the Department for Environment, Food and of providers for both the inshore and the offshore Rural Affairs with the competence to deliver marine element of the patrol requirement. planning and licensing and, in this context, fisheries We have come up with a greater amount of surface management, control and enforcement regulation. surveillance that we need in the round, and the mechanism to deliver that will of course include the Royal Navy. We Q80 George Eustice: I am sure that the Committee have dialogue with Border Force as well, to see what will have noticed from your biography that you have utility there is within its vessel fleet—it is predominantly long experience in the fisheries protection fleet and the its cutters. Similarly,the inshore fisheries and conservation Royal Navy, and most recently at the MMO. Before authorities, which are the small English-based regional getting on to the work we have done on future enforcement, organisations that have a jurisdiction of the nought to I wonder whether you could describe to the Committee 6 miles of inshore fisheries, have a fleet of vessels that what the MMO control room in Newcastle does, how we may be able to get some utility out of. Also, we are we monitor fishing vessels and how many fisheries speaking with colleagues in the devolved Administrations protection vessels we currently have access to. to see what utilities are there. We are trying to get a Phil Haslam: The mechanism we use to conduct blended provision of surface surveillance. fisheries control and enforcement is risk-based and Aerial surveillance is a capability that is being intelligence-led. The mechanism by which we do that reintroduced. The idea is to have routine overflight of ashore is to have up to 75 warranted officers who can be our waters so that, should there be vessels that should deployed—routinely,circa 50 are able to be deployed—and not be there and are not discernible through remote we are situated at 14 offices around the coast of England. location devices, we have, basically, a set of eyes in the The MMO regulates only within English waters. That is air that can see them. In terms of monitoring vessels at one element of our business: shore-based inspections of sea at present, there is a system called the vessels monitoring landing, marketplace inspections and the like. The risk- system, which gives us the position statement of vessels based, intelligence-led description is basically what it of 12 metres or longer. 45 Public Bill Committee 4 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 46

Q82 George Eustice: Finally, the Ministry of Defence you think sufficient resource is provided to ensure that recently announced that it had delayed the decommissioning UK waters are kept safe and protected and that our of the existing three offshore patrol vessels, and it regulations are properly enforced? intends to introduce four new ones, I think. How much Phil Haslam: There is always a risk of tensions unearthing difference will having that extra capacity in reserve themselves within a fishing thing, but I must say that make, should it be needed? what we saw with the baie de Seine scallop wars was an Phil Haslam: It will make an enormous difference. As expression of discontent based on using fishing vessel you stated earlier, at the moment the fishery protection rather than on non-compliance with fisheries regulation, squadron is relatively constrained in the number of which is what the MMO does. There is a risk—that is vessels it can put to sea, and that matches our constraint the risk we have analysed—and against that risk we in being able to contract them. Having more vessels have built a bid for increased surveillance to meet and available to us to police a very large EEZ gives us that mitigate it. flexibility to deploy ships to the right place at the right time. By keeping the batch one offshore patrol vessels in Q86 Luke Pollard: The Batch 2 River class that you service for longer and introducing the batch twos are getting as part of the fishery patrol vessels are very incrementally, as they come off the build, there will be a capable ships, and not having the Batch ones retired is a larger hand of cards to be played with. good move. That total fleet, though, relies on numbers of people to put them to sea and we know that there is Q83 George Eustice: I have one other final point. huge pressure within the Royal Navy to provide people. Enforcement is obviously devolved, so what you have Given your former experience with the Fishery Protection described is what is taking place and what is planned for Squadron, could you enlighten us a little bit? Having in England. Could you describe how the challenge more hulls is a good thing, but is there a sufficient differs, for instance in Scotland, where we obviously number of people to man those hulls to ensure that we have a large interest? What work do we do with Marine have the necessary enforcement capacity? Scotland and its enforcement vessels? Phil Haslam: We have to be careful. The vessels the Phil Haslam: Fisheries enforcement is devolved, as Royal Navy deploys to meet any MMO contract that is you state. The way the Scottish do it is to have three signed in the future is within its gift. It may be Batch 2s vessels that conduct enforcement up to 330 days a year or Batch 1s, but that is the call of the commander of the within their waters. They contract two aircraft as well, squadron. In terms of manning the ships, it is similar. If to provide oversight. At this moment, they have the the demand is there and it is required, the Royal Navy, kind of surveillance capability and control and enforcement being as innovative as it is, will come up with manning capability that we are building up to. solutions to meet what it needs to do.

Q84 Luke Pollard: A moment ago you gave the figure Q87 Luke Pollard: Finally, you mentioned the of 2,000 hours of surveillance. Could you give us a consultation on inshore vessel monitoring systems. It sense of how the number of hours that have been seems to be a good thing to switch from an automatic deployed for enforcement has changed since 2010? identification system. Anecdotal evidence suggests that Phil Haslam: Yes. Royal Navy vessels used to be fishermen turn their AIS off if they find fish so as not contracted on a 24-hour-day basis. That was always to alert their friends as to where there is a good catch, non-exclusive, so they were not passed to the MMO, but I-VMS does not come with that switch. Is that where we would have command and control of them; right? Can you explain what difference that would make they would conduct our business but always with the to vessel monitoring with regard to enforcement and risk of higher priority national tasking taking them safety? away. But we did have more of them in 2010, and over Phil Haslam: The automatic information system, which time, with reductions in the MMO budget, we have had is fitted to vessels of 300 gross tonnage and above is to roll back the number of hours, or days, we can predominantly an anti-collision device. It is to create contract, moving from 24-hour days to 12-hour days situational awareness at sea. It is an open-source mechanism and then to nine-hour days. by which you can find out information about any given When I came into this job we were relatively constrained ship, where it is going and what type it is. In fishing, a regarding where we could deploy them for that part of fisherman’s mark of where he is fishing and what he is the day. The idea of going to hours was to give us the getting from it is commercially sensitive and we would flexibility to deploy them where the need was, rather not wish to openly display that. I-VMS—the inshore than where they were shackled. So there has been a vessel monitoring system—is a similar system to the reduction, but on the other side of that, with the vessel one on smaller vessels. It gives us a picture of what is monitoring system we have an understanding of what is going on within the fishery. To conduct a fishery, you going on in our waters. We have a picture against which need to know what the input is so that you can control we can patrol. So it was risk-based. the output. That is not something we have at the moment. Also, it covers off that commercial sensitivity. We are Q85 Luke Pollard: The figures I have seen suggest not transmitting where a fisherman is. There is a point- that in 2010 there were 16,000 hours, and now we have to-point transmission of that data, which we will take 2,000. That trajectory, that path, that reduction of into a hub so that we have a picture of what is going on enforcement, at a time when we will probably, based on in our waters, but that is not widely accessible. risk assessments, need to protect and enforce our waters to a greater extent than in the past, concerns me. It Q88 Jeremy Lefroy: Could you give us a brief insight seems quite a challenge. What is your assessment of into the kinds of enforcement actions you have to take whether we will see more things like the scallop wars, now and whether they are likely in future to be different not in French waters but in UK waters, after Brexit? Do in type or in quantity, or in both? 47 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 48

Phil Haslam: The enforcement action we take now is Phil Haslam: That is where our judgment has been that we enforce the requirements of the common fisheries made, and that is where the bid has gone in. We are policy. In a routine inspection, when you board a fishing building that capability in order to be able to deploy it vessel you check the paperwork. Is the vessel licensed, in within the timescales, so by March. the first instance? Does it have quota for its catch? Then you would go into the mechanics of, “What have you caught? How have you caught them? Which area have Q93 David Duguid: Still on the subject of fisheries you caught them in?” Then you do an inspection to see protection, you mentioned airborne surveillance earlier. whether what is reflected in the logbook is manifest One of the questions that fishermen in my constituency within the fishing vessel. That is what we do at sea in keep asking is: how does the eye in the sky seeing terms of inspection. It is everything from paperwork, to something wrong—somebody shooting their nets where gear inspection, through to the actual catch. Ashore it is they should not be shooting their nets, or whatever it similar: it is about taking data from the logbook and is—turn into some kind of enforcement or some kind of then inspecting to see whether what is being landed actual protection, particularly in the future when there matches that, and then goes through to the marketplace is no automatic equal access to our EEZ? as well. All of it is in pursuit of assuring sustainable Phil Haslam: The intent of redeploying aerial surveillance practice, but also the traceability of fish. That underpins on a more routine basis is to cover off any risk that we the sustainability. do not continue to receive data that we receive now through the vessel monitoring system and the like. We Q89 Jeremy Lefroy: Would you envisage it to be would need a mechanism to build a picture of what was similar in future or different in the nature or quantity of happening in our waters. If it is not derived remotely inspections? from a location device on board a vessel, we will have to Phil Haslam: I would expect it to be similar in future. actively go out and build that picture. We do controlled enforcement now. There may be a What the aerial surveillance does in the first instance requirement to do much more of it in the future, and is build situational awareness of what is going on in the there may be additional complexity, such as different water. If, once you have that, you see in among it permissions to be able to access our waters and the like. non-compliant behaviour, it can operate as a queueing All of that will just become another thing that we have platform. Either it can queue in a surface vessel to come to understand, inspect and ensure compliance with. and take subsequent action, or you can warrant the air crew so that they can issue lawful orders, whether it be, Q90 Jeremy Lefroy: Finally, what percentage of “You are required to recover your gear and exit our inspections result in you finding that rules have not waters,” or whatever it is. That can be passed from the been complied with? aircraft. Phil Haslam: At sea, it can be as much as one in three It is not an entire panacea. It cannot stop non-compliant where you find some level of non-compliant behaviour. activity, because it is clearly airborne, but it gives you, Not all of that ends up in a court room. Some of that first and foremost, that picture. It has a very clear can be covered off with a verbal re-brief, because it is a deterrent capability, and it can start a compliance regime genuine misunderstanding. At the other end of the by queueing. spectrum is known behaviours. That is where we will have prosecution. Q94 Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/ Co-op): Although it is encouraging that the Royal Navy Q91 Brendan O’Hara: Following on from what is making contingency plans with the River class, there Mr Lefroy was saying, in planning for a no-deal Brexit is still concern about the differential in policing standards or a much-changed situation, what analysis has been to which foreign vessels will be held relative to domestic carried out by your department about the different vessels. I am just looking at what the planning is for that nature of the increased threat post-Brexit? Based on and at how you address the 80% fall in boardings in the that, what assessment has been made of how your past six years, from 1,400 to 278. That indicates a clear capability is going to have to grow to meet that increased reduction in capability. Would it be helpful if the Bill threat? defined that the Royal Navy has to provide a statutory Phil Haslam: The project that I am driving has basically capability, along with the Scottish Fisheries Protection considered several options, one of which is no deal. Agency, to deliver that enforcement in UK waters? Access would no longer be guaranteed; therefore, a risk Phil Haslam: Taking the first point, we work, as I that comes off that would be illegal incursion to the said, on a risk-based, intelligence-led basis, so refining EEZ. There are others options where access is permitted where we deploy our assets is based on that outlook. and there is non-compliance with the conditions of that That is how we would deploy it. In terms of the differential access, so something has to be done about that. The between inspection rates of foreign vessels and UK other thing is that there could be a risk of non-compliance vessels, I think that comes under the same cover. Where from home fleet, based on difficulties with the outcome we perceive that there is risk and intelligence, we will of the negotiations or whatever. However, from a purely take action on where it needs to go. regulatory enforcement perspective we have weighed I am sorry, but I missed the second point about those risks, and that is the way we have built the including something in the Bill. additional capability.

Q92 Brendan O’Hara: Do you have the capacity, the Q95 Mr Sweeney: I was asking whether there should capability and the funding to meet the worst-case scenario be a specific capability defined in the Bill about what that we have talked about? our asset should be for fisheries protection. 49 Public Bill Committee 4 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 50

Phil Haslam: No, because I think it involves over in the pursuit but within the bounds of the regulation. time the introduction of technology that may come As I understand it, that is what we are working towards— downstream. At the moment, the reason we do what we that is rather more of a strategic partnership. do in the manner that we do it is to get evidential quality, should we need to take compliance activity. We Q99 Mr Carmichael: One proposal that has come still need inspectors to step on board fishing vessels. from the NFFO is for the establishment of formal advisory councils, so that you would be bringing scientists, Q96 George Eustice: I want to come back to a couple conservationists, industry representatives and perhaps of points that were raised earlier. Could you tell us what even those responsible for enforcement around the table. work has been done in terms of personnel to identify Do you think that would be effective in terms of delivering people who have recently served in the Fishery Protection a management system that would be less reliant on Squadron and who, if you needed a surge in capacity, enforcement? might be able to be deployed again and already have the Phil Haslam: Personally speaking, yes, because anything required training? that increases the dialogue between the cadre of people Phil Haslam: We have spoken about increased you have mentioned can only help. This has to be a surveillance as part of the package to deliver an enhanced process of shared understanding and pursuit of common control enforcement capability. People are central to objectives. that. In the first instance, we are recruiting additional people into the MMO, so I will go from the cadre of Q100 Mr Carmichael: So you get away from that warranted officers I have now to an increased number. adversarial approach to enforcement? That is actively under way. Also, to provide contingency Phil Haslam: Yes. planning, we have looked within the Royal Navy at who is currently qualified to conduct warranted fisheries Q101 Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab): Good afternoon, business and who has recently been qualified. There has Mr Haslam. You said earlier that the MMO budget has to be a cut-off, because obviously you will time out. been cut. How much has it been cut by since 2010 in There is a cadre of people still within the Royal Navy cash or percentage terms? Secondly, related to that, you who could, should the need arise, be deployable to carry put in a big bid for an increase in resources in order to a warrant and conduct the inspection capability. deal with a no-deal scenario. How much extra have you asked for and has the Minister indicated that he is going Q97 George Eustice: Secondly, in terms of managing to provide it? access, additional access is sometimes granted in fisheries Phil Haslam: The budget reduction since inception agreements. We do this in Scotland now; for instance, has been in the order of 60%, but that is counterweighted we allow the Faroes to catch 30% of their mackerel in by the fact that the MMO can accrue income through UK waters. Could you explain how that process works? services delivered. That has provided a relatively stable, How does Marine Scotland enforce that process of if declining, budget. In terms of the bid for additional managing conditional access? capability going forward, a bid has been made and we Phil Haslam: Basically, if you allow access to your are just in the process of finessing that. waters you have to control who is coming in and who goes out. There is quite a sophisticated way of checking Q102 Owen Smith: Can you tell us how much more in and checking out: a vessel has to declare its catch on you have asked for? entering and its catch on exit. Indeed, the point of exit Phil Haslam: How much more in terms of actual— and point of entry is conditioned as well, so you can establish gates at sea where people have to actively come Owen Smith: Percentage versus current budgets, or in through, so you can understand who is in your waters at cash terms. any given time. I know that within Scottish waters quite Phil Haslam: It is basically a doubling of the budget a dynamic mechanism has to be in place to manage the at the moment. inflow and outflow of vessels. Q103 Owen Smith: Has the Minister indicated that Q98 Mr Carmichael: Youhave a tremendous range of might be forthcoming? experience. To what extent do you think that non- Phil Haslam: Support in delivering it, yes. I have not compliance can be driven in the mismatch between seen any resistance in terms of, “We need this capability.” quota and stocks? Let me give you an idea of my The scale and volume is the bit, because it is based on thinking. Some 20 years ago I used to make modest judgments of risk, but nobody has said they have any sums of money in Banff sheriff court defending constituents doubt about the operational need. of Mr Duguid who had caught their monkfish one side of the 4 degree line when all the quota was on the other, Q104 Owen Smith: But hitherto, this Government which led to misreporting. That was just a classic mismatch have cut 60% of your funding. between where the quota was and where the stock was. Phil Haslam: Under austerity,in line with all Government To what extent do you think that that sort of mismatch spending, there has been a decline. drives non-compliance? Phil Haslam: It provides an opportunity for non- The Chair: We have five minutes left for any further compliance, provided you are minded to do that. I questions from the Government side. If not, Luke Pollard. would not want to perceive something adversarial, with the regulator running around trying to catch fishermen Q105 Luke Pollard: I want to pick up on your earlier out. The way this works best is that the rules work for answer where you described the inshore vessel monitoring the industry. We, as an enabling regulator, support them system. Will foreign boats fishing in UK waters have a 51 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 52

[Luke Pollard] we are not confined to permitting vessels simply from Europe.My question is how do we ensure the seaworthiness requirement to have IVMS on their boats, so you will be of those vessels that may or may not receive a permit or able to track where they are when they are in UK licence to operate in our seas? waters? Phil Haslam: Taking what happens now for a UK Phil Haslam: We have the latitude to make that a vessel or an English vessel, the Maritime and Coastguard condition of the permit to enter. Agency issues a certificate of seaworthiness, and that is the first thing we need to see in granting a licence to Q106 Luke Pollard: So you have that power currently. fish. Phil Haslam: That is what we can do as an independent coastal state. Access to our waters will be granted by a Q111 Bill Grant: No matter where that vessel emanates permit, and the conditions we put on that permit are for from. the country to determine, so yes we can. Phil Haslam: We would expect a similar behaviour. If that vessel was applying for a licence to fish in UK Q107 Luke Pollard: Just so I understand, you are waters, one of the checks and balances you would have saying that the UK will have that power in the future. is asking, “Is it fit to conduct itself at sea? Is it seaworthy?” Should that power be set out in the Bill—that this That would be the first check. should be a requirement? My concern is that UK boats might have to have IVMS, but foreign boats might not, Bill Grant: Thank you. depending on what option we decide to put in the licence. There should be a level playing field between The Chair: On behalf of the Committee, Mr Haslam, UK boats and foreign boats in UK waters, so should all I thank you for your attendance and your evidence. boats not have to have IVMS on them? Phil Haslam: The power in the Bill gives us the ability Examination of Witness to regulate who comes into our waters by granting Dr Tom Appleby gave evidence. permission. I do not think the conditions of permission need to be explicit in the Bill, but they can be part of 3 pm that, among other things that we would require any The Chair: We now move on to our sixth witness, vessel within our waters to comply with. from the Blue Marine Foundation. Would you please introduce yourself and your organisation? Q108 Mike Hill: On the point you made about IVMS, Dr Appleby: I am Dr Tom Appleby.I am a non-practising would that extend to what I consider to be leisure solicitor but I have been in property law for about fishing craft as well? 20 years. I am also an associate professor of the University Phil Haslam: There will be a cut-off of who actually of the West of England, and I have been operating in gets fitted with it, because the point is to try to develop this sphere—ports, marine conservation and fisheries—for a picture of what is the main input into the fishery in about 15 years. terms of effort on vessels out there. There will be some vessels—there will be a line below which we will not Q112 George Eustice: May I ask for your general need to go. At the moment we are looking to catch—not impressions of the Bill? Does it do the things that catch, that is the wrong word—fit IVMS to the active you would expect a domestic fisheries policy to do, or fishing vessels. are there other elements that you would like to see included? Mike Hill: To commercial vessels. Dr Appleby: First off, it has been drafted in short Phil Haslam: Tocommercially active fishing vessels, yes. order to deal with the situation that we have. By and large, and given the constraints that the drafters had—you Q109 Luke Pollard: The Bill includes provision for can see that it is drafted in different forms and it does the Secretary of State to allocate fishing opportunities not sit together very well; it is not very beautiful—it based on days at sea, as well as the fixed quota allocation. does what it says on the tin, but it could be improved. I How does your enforcement action differ when you are was looking at some other legislation. The Australian looking at a boat using days at sea versus looking at a Fisheries Management Act 1991 has 168 sections, the boat fishing against an FQA? MACA—the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009—has 325, but this has 43. You can see that more could have The Chair: Can you answer that question quickly, gone in here, but there were time constraints on the Mr Haslam, because one other Member wishes to ask a people who drafted it, and I think that they produced question? what they could in the timescale. Phil Haslam: Okay. In terms of an effort scheme, we would just need a data flow to track how often that Q113 George Eustice: Are you happy that clause 1 vessel is put to sea, and whether it is in the bounds of broadly brings across the marine environment objectives the effort that is available. We have effort schemes that from European legislation? we run now. Dr Appleby: It does. Clause 1 leads you into the devolution minefield. One thing it has to try to deal Q110 Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con): with in drafting is repatriating legislation on the one I was also thinking about the licensing of vessels for hand, and then delegating it around the four nations of fishing. Licensing of vessels or permits to fish in our the UK on the other. It tries to do that. Given the waters may go to vessels not from within the EU 27. I constraints on the drafters, there are fisheries plans to assume that they can come from elsewhere in the globe; bring these objectives in. 53 Public Bill Committee 4 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 54

There are potentially some bits missing. We do not is settled, and that we can do some interesting things have marine planning in there, which we could possibly with it. I think that balance is there if you pull back just put in. Quota could possibly go in there. There could be slightly on the prescriptive language about what you do a method of dealing with quota at that stage, on how, if with it. and when quota comes back, what happens with climate change and fishing opportunities. That could be put Q115 George Eustice: Do you think a legal power is into the plans as well. needed to do that? They passed legislation in the However, I recognise that the drafters sat there not Faroes that effectively put people on notice, and said only having to operate from the UK perspective but that after 10 years they would depart from an FQA also having to take the devolved Administrations with system. Our view is that the Government could state them, which inevitably is slow. The clause could be that intention, at which point the clock would start improved if we had a little more time. ticking without the need to have a provision on the face of the Bill. Q114 George Eustice: We obviously have to look at Dr Appleby: We reallocated quota last time—unused marine planning in the context of the retained EU law quota—without compensation or additional legislation, coming across and that we have other bits of legislation. so I think we could do that. I think you have to be Some of those things are already provided for. careful when you do that, because a lot of people The second point I want to raise is on the fixed quota borrow money by using their quota as collateral. One allocation—the FQA units—which has been the basis the one hand, there are some very rich people sitting on of quota allocation inside the UK, attached to individual quota—the quota barons we read about—but on the vessels, as you know. We have been explicit in the White other hand, there are people who use quota to support Paper, and we take the powers in the Bill to make a their running a business. Youwould need to think about break from that, and to say that any additional fishing what you will do, but I think you can do that under the opportunities that come as we depart from relative current legislation. stability could be allocated on a different basis. What is What has happened here is that it has been beefed your view of the FQA units system? up. We have put some more suggestions forward. There Dr Appleby: What has happened is that the UK are two things that you could do. You could vest the fishery has essentially been, for want of a better word, fishery so that it actually becomes public property. We squatted. We gave it out free to two people, who then have done a heck a lot of research at UWE on who sold it and it became propertised. The UK Association owns it, and we reckon it was set up by some sort of of Fish Producer Organisations case held that unused implied Crown trust that goes back to the middle ages. FQA became a property right. One of my PhD students is working on this at the moment. The White Paper talks about quota being a public It would be easier just to state in the Bill that it is a asset, so we have to make a decision on whether the UK public asset and put it in some sort of trust, and then fishery—particularly if we are getting more back; it will you would get the kind of things that you would normally be very expensively brought—starts off as a public expect when disposing of a public asset to the commercial asset. That means unwinding the FQA system. You can sector. That is the way I would approach it. I appreciate potentially do that under existing powers, or you can do that we did not start there; we started with an open-access it under some things in the Bill. When you actually look resource, which we have tried to deal with through at the auction, I think you have probably constrained legislation. We are in a transition. yourself a bit too much. If you auction off quota, you are looking at people who have the cash to buy the quota in the first place. A royalty, for instance, is the Q116 Luke Pollard: You mention fisheries management sort of thing that you would charge—I think we would and how that is missing from the Bill. In particular, call it turnover rent in the property sector. That would fisheries management and how that fits with marine be a way of charging people and then not having to plans in the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 seems come up with the cash. Even in the Bill, it only says to be omitted. Can you just expand on what you think “may” use an auction. Without constraining yourself, the Bill is missing in fisheries management? you could expand your powers on what we do with Dr Appleby: I am not sure. In common with previous repatriated quota and, indeed, what we do with FQA speakers, I liked the idea of a scientific adviser, which generally. would be a lovely thing to have. Its constitution is We went through some debate when first drafting probably the same size as the Act, so you can imagine our amendments. We thought that we needed to put a the bunfight about who sits on the advisory panel, stop to FQA, but a legal argument will come back the whether it is peer reviewed and whether it is other way that says quota is a property right. We devolved. That is a huge conversation to have, and it thought, “Well, if you give eight years’ notice, that’s needs to be had in public. That is something I would probably sufficient to deal with any compensation that like to see. If we had more time, I would like to see that would arise,” but even then, I did not feel comfortable go in the Bill. putting that in the Bill, because you reify the situation There is a mirror piece of legislation, which is the as soon as you do that. We put it in to start with, then Environmental Principles and Governance Bill. Does we took it back out again on the basis that there that apply to fishing or not? When we leave the EU, we needs to be a proper conversation about what we do will lose the right to infraction proceedings against with quota. Given the time restraints, we will not be recalcitrant UK—all parts of the UK. Should Scotland able to do that in the Bill, even with the best will in the do something, it is the UK that gets infracted. We will world. We can reserve the powers in the Bill to ensure lose that, and we have not quite been able to replace that whatever we decide to do with FQA in the long run that kind of thing. 55 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 56

Those are just two examples: a good, robust, scientific, after itself. From an environmental charity point of forward-looking body that looks at how to make the view, we are not so concerned as long as there is most of our resources, and some sort of regulatory something in there that does allow some conversation regime to punish the hindmost, if you want to be quite about moving to the right stocks that produce more so curt. fish, more jobs and a better environment. We could get hung up on this if we are not careful. Q117 Luke Pollard: On the dispute resolution mechanism that you are talking about, the Government seem to Q119 Peter Aldous: Tom, you were expressing concern think that they have the powers to resolve disputes at how a public asset might have inadvertently become a between the devolved administrations and the UK property right, and how that might constrain more Government at the moment. Is it your view that that is radical reforms of the quota system. Could we go back the case, or would an explicit dispute mechanism to the court case of 2012-13 when Lord Justice Coulson requirement in the Bill make that easier in the future? put down his determination? I have heard some suggestions Dr Appleby: I think you can put one in. I would love that the Secretary of State won that case against the to, but given the timeframe to which we are working— POs, because what he was proposing was very reasonable having this Bill ready for March—it would almost be a and small-scale, and the POs were acting unreasonably. wrecking amendment if we tried to put something like Is that a view that you would share, or would you say that in. You are going into devolution which is an that Coulson allows one to go a step further? enormously emotive topic, especially at the moment. In Dr Appleby: An FQA is a possession under the European terms of the Government’s position of being able to hit convention on human rights. There is a distinction. the devolved administrations with a stick: it is a devolved “Quota” is once it is distributed, and FQA units are matter. I do not think the Government can do that. about your expectation of how much of a share of the When you look at most of the Act, it is consensual UK’s TAC you are going get every year. That was based and they are consulting one another. That is how it on the historical landings data, traditionally. He said should be, to be honest. The four nations should be able that unused FQA units could be reallocated without to work together and that is right. At some level we have compensation. FQA units are a possession, so the lost the outside influence that we had. The way everything corollary of that is that used FQA units—and most of is drafted is, unfortunately, currently predicated on having them are used—would require some sort of compensation a common fisheries policy that kept everything together. payment. I have not been privy to the subsequent I am talking around the subject because were you to put legal advice, and I took a sharp intake of breath when a drafting pen in front of me and say, “Get on and draft he said that at the time. In fact, I went to court to that,” it would be incredibly difficult. My sympathies go watch some of the court proceedings—it was quite out to the Government for what they have done. interesting; it was right up my field. It is inherent in the UK that we do not take assets off people without Q118 Luke Pollard: Finally, one of the areas that compensation. It is part of our culture—way before the seems to be weaker in the Bill than in the common European convention. fisheries policy is the area around maximum sustainable There is another point about that redistribution and yield and the removal of a commitment to achieve it by the immediate way it would have ramifications on how 2020. Where there are difficulties in achieving maximum the whole commercial sector is constructed, which you sustainable yield by 2020, do you think that the MSY need to be mindful of. Once you put that whole lot into provisions in the Fisheries Bill are sufficiently robust to a bag and shake it up, you could design a scheme to make sure that we are restoring stock levels in our reallocate quota, but it would need to be done in a oceans, especially as climate change seems to be missing sensible, crafted way. as a theme from much of the Bill? Is that something that we could address? Q120 Owen Smith: Dr Appleby, you say that MSY is Dr Appleby: What does maximum sustainable yield not necessary, and that hardwiring a greater onus on actually mean? The European Union defines it as something Ministers to adhere to MSY in terms of the allocation like the highest theoretical equilibrium yield. It says of future quotas is not necessarily the way to go. If we something like that in the basic regulation. You take a had more time—I take what you say about there being basket of theories and you use the highest one. It has limited time—is there a way in which we could hardwire been knocked around as a term for a long time. Our sustainability in respect of future fisheries management rights in our EEZ only go up to maximum sustainable into this Bill? yield and we do not have a right to fish beyond it. We Dr Appleby: That is a good question. There are things can take the interest off our fish stock outside our that you can do. The Australian legislation, for instance, territorial waters, but we cannot spend the capital. This makes it a legal duty to fish sustainably and according is the way to look at it. to the plans that they come up with. We could put that To some extent, that is all the rights we have. I have in. Our fisheries statements are a bit woolly. I notice not explicitly looked at that, but my sense on the way that there is a bit in here that says that they do not have this works is that we would be bound by MSY targets to adhere if relevant considerations are taken into account. anyway. The other thing is that the UK has access to What is a relevant consideration? I could not find a judicial review, whereas trying to review the European definition of that. Commission is interesting. It is very difficult to get a We have not nailed the Secretary of State to the floor standing in the European Court of Justice, particularly in this Bill, and that could be done. Again, it would have on maximum sustainable yield. A few years the World to be done in the context of devolution, so we would Wildlife Fund tried to get access on cod quotas, I think, have to nail everybody’s feet to the floor around the and they failed. So the European Union is good at UK, because we cannot have a situation in which one giving rules to other people, but not so good at looking part of the UK can fish non-sustainably and the other 57 Public Bill Committee 4 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 58 parts cannot. There are things that you can do. There certain way or if you want some sort of flexibility. are tweaks and modifications that can be made to Again, it is interesting that, coming from a conservation harden up that duty. point of view with my Blue hat on, I am not uncomfortable with just leaving it at MSY. Q121 Owen Smith: For clarification, you were saying that it is in Australian legislation that there are fisheries The Chair: I have Alistair Carmichael and then Mike policies? Hill, unless anybody else wishes to contribute. Dr Appleby: Yes, I think that their fisheries plans are statutory. Q125 Mr Carmichael: May I just tease out for a second or two the question of property rights as they Q122 Owen Smith: And they are legally binding on pertain to FQA? As I understand your evidence so far, Ministers to ensure those things are observed? if we were to get to somewhere sensible on this, we Dr Appleby: They have a management board. We are would not start from here. Is that a fair comment? I can looking at the scientific advisory panel that has been understand why you would take the idea of eight years put forward. Those scientific recommendations are binding and then think no—if I came to you and said I will take in some way. your house away in eight years’ time, you would not be very happy about that. At the same time, does the whole Q123 Owen Smith: I have one separate question. Do idea of quota auction not put beyond any doubt that you take an environmental view of what the potential this is a tradeable commodity? benefits might be of preserving certain fisheries or Dr Appleby: You can write that into the legislation. stocks for recreational fishing, as has happened elsewhere? The Americans, in the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Dr Appleby: You are looking at a public resource, so Conservation and Management Act, just write in that it how do we make the best of that public resource? Some is not a property right. You can make it terminable, so of that is going to be to the commercial sector and some that it kind of becomes a contractual right. of it is undoubtedly going to be to the recreational sector. The whole thing is so political because we are Q126 Mr Carmichael: But that is what you could trying to carve up this public resource through regulation. do with a blank sheet of paper. We do not have a Undoubtedly, the recreational sector is an important blank sheet of paper; we have a history here of people part of this conversation, too. Historically, although it borrowing large sums of money on the basis of their has recently been included in the common fisheries then having property rights that they can then offer up policy, it has come to the table late. as security. Dr Appleby: One way of dealing with that is to inflate Q124 George Eustice: I want to come back to this your way out of it, so that you do not punish one point about some of the environmental criteria and individual. You could say that, this year, you are going potentially having a hard nib point for MSY,for instance, to topslice 20%. as a statutory target. One unique thing about fisheries is that, in or out of Q127 Mr Carmichael: So do you think that it would the EU, they are subject to annual international fisheries be possible for repatriated quota and existing quota to negotiations. Norway, for instance, follows MSY but have different rights? also follows lots of other scientific metrics that it thinks Dr Appleby: I think you could. We are straying into are superior to those that we use. In such a situation, do an area for which you need explicit legal advice, but I you think it is important to keep that flexibility, so that see no reason why not. You are not disappointing you can actually land an agreement with Norway, the somebody. The other thing about doing this sort of Faroes, Iceland and the EU, or is it preferable to make it thing with this sort of asset is that you cannot target unlawful for the UK to reach such an agreement and one individual and say that you are going to take their just have everyone go off on their own and unilaterally quota off them and off they go. That really is compulsory set a tax? purchase. When you water down the entire pot, it is Dr Appleby: That is an interesting question; theoretically, much harder for somebody to make a claim, particularly we cannot fish beyond MSY,because that is all we have. if fish stocks start to come back and the inherent value Under the United Nations convention on the law of the of the asset has not really changed. sea, our rights extend to MSY and that is it. You cannot The price of quota pings around like anything, depending have an agreement on what you do not have. on how much fish has been landed that month. It is not However, the question is: what is MSY? It comes a very stably priced asset anyway. Again, if in the Act down to the definition. The Norwegians would probably you use robust wording about this, the first thing the argue that, by taking a basket of different theories, we courts will look at is the Act and ask what Parliament achieve MSY, because one stock can be plotted on a has said. It comes back to reasonableness, I think. graph and another cannot. I am not a fisheries scientist— you would have to ask them—but it seems that you are Q128 Mr Carmichael: You can slice it and dice it any essentially looking at something like a repairing obligation way you like, but in essence you are talking about on a lease. How far can you go with this and do it in a nationalising a private resource. You compensate for sensible way? that, do you not? The difficulty with going into, say, MSY or BMSY or Dr Appleby: The thing is that it was never privatised all those things, which I have never completely got my properly in the first place. Normal squatter’s rights head around, is that you define a particular scientific would be 12 years, but this is based on three years. It is a methodology in your Bill. I think that could come back much shorter timeline that people have a track record to haunt the draftsman if stock does not behave in a for. We did the same thing with the milk quota—that 59 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 60 was wound down—and various other farm subsidy Examination of witness payments were wound down, too. This is not a sector Aaron Brown gave evidence. where this sort of thing happens. The duty of the public administrators is to make sure 3.29 pm there is no undue shock on the fishing industry by pulling the rug out from everyone, and otherwise to The Chair: We now move to our final session of the make sure we safeguard what is, at least nominally, a day, which I remind colleagues must finish at 4 pm. The public asset. Elsewhere, in the UK Association of Fish final witness is Aaron Brown of Fishing for Leave. Producer Organisations case, which is a slightly funny Could you please introduce yourself as the witness? case, Justice Cranston says that it is a public resource. Aaron Brown: I am Aaron Brown of Fishing for There is some force in the intervenor’s point that it is a Leave; thank you to hon. Members for having me along public resource. today.

Q129 Mr Carmichael: Just 30 seconds on devolution, because I want to give colleagues some time. Is there not Q132 George Eustice: Thank you very much for a conflict of interest where the United Kingdom is joining us. I know you have long been an advocate of an holding the reins but is parti pris in respect of the effort-based regime, rather than a quota-based regime English interest as well? or potentially a hybrid model. You will be aware that Dr Appleby: That is a very good question. I put my the White Paper sets out a commitment to pilot that, amendments together in two parts. The Secretary of particularly with the inshore mixed fisheries. Could you State is doing two roles; I am sitting here with two roles just set out what your thoughts are in that respect and myself, so I appreciate that. One is being the Secretary why you think an effort-based regime would be better of State on behalf of the UK—he is a trustee of the than a quota-based regime? UK’s public fishery—and the other one is being English Aaron Brown: To start with, overall we were very Fisheries Minister. That is why I do not like the way happy with the White Paper. The Bill is somewhat clause 20 is drafted, because I thought you would split disappointing, because a lot of what was good and gave the functions. The trouble is that it goes into some very a lot of hope to people has disappeared, and an effort difficult water when we start to look at the different pilot was one such thing. We have been staunch advocates devolution settlements. of that, because over 30 years with increasing regulatory burden we have tried to go up a cul-de-sac and it has not worked. We have had black fish and discards, and now Q130 Mike Hill: I have two simple questions. In your we are on to choke species. opinion, does the Bill provide the requirement for the UK fisheries to be sustainable? Should the Secretary of We sat back and said, to use a phrase the Minister State provide annual statements on stock levels? likes to coin himself, “What are the first principles of management?”, and that is the ecosystem. You have to Dr Appleby: I will take the second question first work with mother nature. Currently, all the problems, because the second one leads to the first. How can you many of which Members have discussed today—whether define “sustainable” if you do not know what the stock that is enforcement, science or shares of resources—all levels are? There is a massive absence of science on this. stem from the current quota system. What we said is If we get money back in from the fishery, I would like that the only way to manage a dynamic mixed fishery, the commissioning of decent science so we can look where you catch a mix of species that fluctuate up and ahead and plan forward. We seem to be navigating down and it is difficult to determine exact, quantitative, while looking behind us. We need to get better data to arbitrary figures such as quotas, is to say to vessels, manage the stock. We also need to have a conversation “What is a sustainable level of time that vessels need to about which stock we want to fish. What are the stocks catch a sustainable amount of fish from an ecosystem? that live best in our waters that we want to feed the If in the North sea you can take 200,000 tonnes of country in the 21st century? biomass, combined, from that ecosystem, how long does it take your fleet collectively to do that?” The Chair: Mr Aldous wants to ask a question and we have just less than a minute left. That allows vessels to land all catches. It means you see exactly what the fluctuations and dynamism in the marine environment are, which generates accurate science, Q131 Peter Aldous: The Secretary of State has to and you are flowing along with the environment rather consult with Welsh and Scottish Ministers and the than what we are trying to do just now, which is to Northern Irish on this. Are the English put at a impose arbitrary theoretical targets and then try to hit disadvantage? them. That has been proved not to work. Dr Appleby: There is an argument. If we were to try Just to finish, before Mr Aldous asks a question, we to stick an English Fisheries Minister into this Bill, quickly concluded that effort control alone does not which is kind of where you are going, that is the West work, and that is what we brought to the Department as Lothian question. I almost feel we should ask the a solution that answers most questions. Blunt time at Minister what he feels. sea, especially in a blunt measurement such as days at sea, does not work. What we have developed is a system The Chair: The Minister will have several hours over where you adopt FQAs, so there is no contention about the next few weeks to tell us what he thinks. Time is at a people losing their investment in that, and turn them premium. On behalf of the Committee, I thank you into percentages that people should be aiming to catch. Dr Appleby and the organisation for your submission. It is not an arbitrary weight that you are aiming for; Watch the Bill with interest as it progresses. what you are aiming for is a percentage-based mix of 61 Public Bill Committee 4 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 62 what is deemed to be sustainable. If you catch outside That would solve the bass problem. You could put in that percentage, what happens is that you lose time in a zero catch composition for bass. Any catches would compensation. have a time penalty. Boats could be tied up on the Therefore, as a vessel is losing time for catching the Monday but they would have that bass landed, and the wrong fish that he is able to land for that time penalty, financial benefit of it. It would work for spurdogs. We his effort burden on the environment is coming back. really believe there is a system here that merits a good Since the fish that has been landed has almost been time look, and proper scrutiny and trial. As we say, we lose for the crime, scientists know that is a true representation nothing if it fails and we gain everything if it succeeds. of what is going on. I have worked on this for over two years; we have not asked for it to be dropped out of the Q134 Luke Pollard: Do you think that fish should be sky, as some of the amendments to the Bill seem to a public asset and that that should be defined in the be—for an enabling Bill, there are some clauses that seem Bill? to be a shopping list for DEFRA. What we are asking Aaron Brown: I think that absolutely, yes. I think for is a trial, because we truly believe that for a unique there has always been that case. I was very pleased to system anywhere in the world, we have a system here hear Dr Tom Appleby state that, and many of the other that could get us away from poor science, solve the problem non-governmental organisations have said it, about the of FQAs and who owns them, and get us towards a far idea of privatisation. Even with the FQA system, it says more sustainable fisheries management system. in the paperwork that people get through, that it should We implore hon. Members to put in a legislative not be bartered, sold or bought. It just happens to be requirement that a trial across the fleet, not just inshore, that the industry has gone and done it. is enacted to give us an alternate solution. If it fails, it Fish always has been a public resource. Various judicial fails, and if it is proved right, we have lost nothing but hearings have defined that as well. Indeed, it probably gained a lot. stretches all the way back into Magna Carta, right back through our constitution. At the end of the day, we as Q133 George Eustice: Just to clarify, there is a different fishermen, as the members of the public who catch, are purpose behind a White Paper, which sets out your only custodians of what is the nation’s; we look after it policy and what you seek to do with the powers, and a and husband it well for current generations and future Bill that establishes the legal powers you need to deliver ones. We would very much like to see a clause put in your policy. We would not need a specific clause to say, towards that. “You must run a trial,” in order to be able to run a trial; the legal powers to run a trial are in the existing clauses Q135 Luke Pollard: One of the questions asked earlier of the Bill. was about auctioning additional fishing opportunities, Coming back to the principle, the difficulty with and one of the key concerns that Fishing for Leave has fisheries is that, while you have said effort does not raised when we have met has been about how auctioning work, nothing quite works on fisheries. That is why it could favour people who already have a quota, who becomes a circular argument. You seem to be arguing already have cash, which would not support the small for a return to catch composition rules, which themselves boats, on which there should probably be the greater became slightly discredited so that people tried to move focus. Do you have any concerns about where auctioning away from them. The challenge is that an effort regime sits? works best in a mixed fishery where it is harder to Aaron Brown: That is one of the main five things that segregate out the fish, but a tonnage system works best are in the Bill. As I said at the start, one thing that in, say, the pelagic. disappointed us more was what was missing from the Aaron Brown: Absolutely. We would say for pelagic Bill rather than what was in it. But out of the five things species, where you are catching an individual bulk species we are deeply concerned about, that auctioning clause is and vessels can reasonably accurately target that, although one of them. It runs coach and horses through the at times you do get it wrong, a quota system is fine. The principle of it being a public resource. Practically, it will problem is that dynamic mixed fishery—the white fish; end up in the hands of the highest bidders. we include nephrops in that mixed fishery. What we are There is no tightening of the economic link in the saying is catch compositions but not arbitrary limits, Fisheries Bill, which is one of the things we really want which, again, is a problem. It has flexibility. to see included, so without that, combined with auctioning, To avoid a race to fish, to avoid giving people a blunt you could have massive, multinational, hugely wealthy dollop of time and their going off and targeting the seafood companies saying, “British fishing is on the up highest value species because the economic incentive is so we’ll come in and wave our cheque book and outbid there, what you are effectively doing under this system is everyone else.” Even the biggest companies in Britain a buffer scheme, if you like. It is a trading scheme. could not compete with some of those far eastern ones. “Okay, I’ve caught the wrong fish. It’s worth money”. If we go down the auctioning route, we have an Then, rather than discard it into the sea unrecorded and opportunity to draw a line, as I think the right hon. keep on fishing and killing more of that species while Member for Orkney and Shetland said, between the trying to find one you can keep, what you are moving current quota resources—how it has been divvied out, towards is trading overall ceiling of effort for that not in the way we would have chosen—and this clean wrong fish. So it is a compensation scheme, effectively, slate of what comes back. If we go down the auctioning in which you get the financial benefit of that fish and route, where it is monopolised into the hands of a few your men get their pay—we will come on to that with big interests, with their financial firepower, it rides the system that DEFRA proposes for discards—but, coach and horses through the Government’s objective overall, your ceiling in the year comes down to meet of rebuilding coastal communities and supporting family- you. based fishing. 63 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 64

Q136 Luke Pollard: You mentioned effort, and you fishing—is of benefit to any UK vessels, and with suggested a hybrid scheme between FQAs and days sandeel fishing you have the double dunt that the sandeels at sea. There are concerns that the Bill gives the are taken for pig feed, so the British bacon industry Secretary of State powers to allocate fishing opportunities could see a competitor’s food costs go up. simply on days at sea, without any qualification after There would be a massive environmental gain if we that. But the White Paper spoke about there being a banned both practices. That would not affect any British series of trials to assess whether days at sea would industry. I am actually very surprised that a Government deliver against the objectives. Do you think that the who extol their environmental credentials with plastic simple inclusion of days at sea without any qualification cups and wars on wet wipes have not taken the easy win that comes afterwards could make that more of banning pulse fishing. problematic? Aaron Brown: One of the amendments we put in was The Chair: There is considerable interest in asking to amend it to hours at sea. It might seem contrary to questions in this session. We have to finish at 4 pm, so Members that fishermen would want to tighten what can I ask for short questions and shorter answers, could be perceived as a noose on themselves. That please? amendment was to get towards what we really need to get towards, which is some kind of catch-per-unit effort Q138 Peter Aldous: I will not comment on pulse system of fisheries management. fishing, because I agree with you, Mr Brown. I think the Minister said that the Government are happy to look at Over the years, one of the clauses in the Bill we would an effort-based pilot. I am conscious that there was a like to see amended is right at the start: clause 1. It says pilot in the past. What was the outcome of that? What that management will “ensure that…activities are”, which shortcomings were there, and what lessons might we suggests that the Government kind of take a hammer learn for future pilots? and beats down the industry to meet their requirements. We would like to see that reversed so that policy requires Aaron Brown: That is one of the areas where, when management that delivers. In other words, the onus we devised this system, we realised there had been a should be on the Government to say, “Okay, here are massive failing. The days at sea scheme was blunt and the objectives we want to meet. How do we move there was no effective monitoring. Generally, it was towards that?” We want it changed to hours of soak with smaller boats in south-east England. I think even time at sea, because that is a far more accurate method the fishermen themselves would hold their hands up of delivering catch-per-unit effort. You would be getting and say they really knocked the backside out of the accurate data to deliver management that actually achieves pilot. There was mis-reporting going on—they just objectives rather than just trying to take a hammer to went out and kind of went Tonto on it. the industry to make it comply. We are advocating an hours-based system. You would obviously have vessel monitoring systems. We want to get towards a fully integrated monitoring/management Q137 Luke Pollard: Finally, we have heard today that system. Vessels would have sensors, which are not expensive the way fishing is conducted in UK waters has changed to put on—vessels use a similar technology for gear over many years, with new technologies and greater telemetry and door sensors—and go on any type of efficiency in catching fish. There is a new development fishing gear, to monitor soak time, so you would know called electronic pulse-beam fishing, which I have a lot the exact time a vessel’s gear was in the water. There of problems with. Although this level of detail might would be a stipulation to monitor where vessels were not be included in a framework Bill such as this one, we through your inshore VMS or your full-on VMS, and received representations—I tend to agree with them—that also to fill out electronic logbooks, which are here now. that practice should be banned. Do you have strong You would get an up-to-date, haul-by-haul update on views about where electronic pulse-beam fishing sits how much fishing effort was going in. You would know, within acceptable fishing practices? “That boat towed six hours in this area and he caught Aaron Brown: Absolutely. We feel it should be banned x amount of fish for this size of gear. The chap over to outright immediately. You could put a sub-clause in the side towed similar gear and caught half the amount that says it should be banned until it is proved that it is of fish.” You would start to know where the abundancies not responsible for the environmental degradation that were. has been reported by fishermen all around the southern The one main control to go for with a pilot is making North sea, where the derogation has happened. I certainly sure it is rigorously enforced and it is an hours-based do not think anyone could say that the Dutch, who are scheme. The other main thing is the catch composition primarily responsible for this, have not taken the Michael— thing. That really is the main control for regulating the that’s the polite word. It started as a derogation against industry. Rather than everybody going Tonto, like the ban on electric fishing that the European Commission they did last time, and targeting Dover sole, cod or itself got—let us remember that it was a derogation bass, you would say, “Yes guys, you can catch them against the EU’s own scientific advice—for a trial of the and keep them, but be aware that if you do that, your method. That trial has gone on for 10 years and has ceiling of hours is going to come clattering down to 100 boats on it. That is a commercial fishery masquerading meet you.” as a trial. Even the Dutch now hold their hands up to that. We would like to see that banned. Q139 Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP): We would also like to see sandeel fishing banned in I think you touched on this topic earlier on; you said the central North sea. For years and years, that has you would probably come on to it. Do you have a view taken away a key component of the food chain—the on the discard prevention charging scheme that is in the base of the food chain—for sea birds, fish and obviously Bill and on how transparent it is and how it would fishermen. Neither method—pulse fishing or sandeel actually work? 65 Public Bill Committee 4 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 66

Aaron Brown: That is one of the things in the Bill that taking them up the road. Obviously at the ceiling, you very much seems to ride coach and horses over the idea could say, “Well, the tally was wrong.” There is some that the Bill is just an enabling Bill. Obviously, there is a degree of openness to abuse. bit of reticence—okay, you could say, “Understandably However, the thing that disappoints us most, where so”—to career on towards a different type of management our system works but this one allowing fish to come in on an effort-based system, yet somehow we have a does not, is that it does not address the fundamental scheme here that has dropped out of the air, with no flaw: arbitrary quotas do not work in mixed fisheries. prior piloting and no prior consultation, and that has All that happens is that we are now setting an just arrived on the table. We are vehemently against it, arbitrary target that we try to hit, and all this scheme because we personally feel—and everybody who has does is allow you to make it right up to that target. It read the Bill, both among our membership and in other does not actually tell you, “Is that more abundance of organisations, feels—that only an idiot who could not fish?” understand the practical implications of such a scheme In the south-west with haddock, say, or in the North would propose it. sea with hake, you could lift the quota up—double We feel that the scheme is there to administratively it—and the fleet would still catch it. Does that tell you abrogate the failings of the current system. The Government there is a greater abundance of species, or does it are proposing to take all the repatriated resources and basically show that you have given more legislative use them as headroom to avoid choke species, whereby, headroom to bring fish ashore? The only way that as of 2019, vessels have to cease fishing on the exhaustion scheme would work is if you increased the quota of their lowest quota. What will happen is that you will disproportionately high, which no one is going to agree have vessels going to sea. Many hon. Members are from to. Since there would be no economic incentive for the the south-west, as the Minister is, and haddocks are a boats to go off and handle all these fish that they are huge problem there—in the North sea, it is hakes. The not profiting from, you would see where the fleet came Government then say, “We will honour the fish that up to and what a natural abundance catch was. That would choke you or would tie you up. We will give you might be 60,000 tonnes, but if you had set the quota at fish to keep fishing, but so that there is no economic 100,000 tonnes, you would know that there was not that incentive to target that species, you must land it for abundance. The scheme, effectively, does not work. It free.” That scheme effectively creates a giant shuttle needs taking out. service, where boats are going to have to run in and out, in and out of harbour, landing all this fish that they Q141 Bill Grant: I noted that you were very much cannot profit from, to allow them to keep fishing. against the big boys, or the financially powerful, coming The first big problem with that scheme is retention of in on an auction system to buy up the quotas or the crew. Lads are not going to work to retain—well, just right to fish. Bearing in mind that skippers with smaller now it is a 40% discard rate, so if they have to retain that quotas or rights to fish sold them on to those people, 40% for free, you are going to lose your crew very quick. what is your alternative to that system? How would you The next problem is that there is no provision in the Bill make it fair? as to what happens to this fish when it is landed: you Aaron Brown: The way we want to see it is with the cannot turn around and allow processors, hauliers, auction clause taken out and a direct replacement put in markets or shore-based people to profit from it, because on what we call the 1 tonne to one boat principle, that would disadvantage the fishermen. Really, the logical whereby the resource is seen as a national resource and question about that clause is, “Are we going into some legislated as such. What happens is that all the repatriated sort of Soviet system, where the fishing industry is resource that we gain under zonal attachment—anything going to work for free for the Government?” It is an about that is missing from the Bill—that national pot of ill-thought out thing, and I think it needs taking out of resources, gets allocated to all vessels in a sea area fairly, the Bill. It needs to come back once it has been properly equally. For the west coast of Scotland, where we are tested and run in to see if it actually works, because we both from, about 60,000 tonnes of mackerel could be see such pitfalls in it, and it does not actually— repatriated—worth about £60 million—and about 100 vessels are left there with the capability to go to that The Chair: We have to move on, sorry. We have to fishery, so what you would turn around to say, therefore, finish at 4 pm and we may have a Division in the House is that each west coast fishing boat in the ICES sea area before then, so we have to be quick on questions, or all for that stock gets 600 tonnes. That applies across any Members will not get in. Any further questions, Mr Brown? stock. What we would like to see with that is, instead of it Q140 Alan Brown: In terms of perverse incentives just being administrated on a spreadsheet like the non-sector and the process of making money out of these fish, you is, which ends up with DEFRA just saying that we get said that they would be landed for free. Could there not 12 tonnes for 12 months, spread out equally over the be a risk of collusion, with fish being landed and months, is that that fish can be held in a PO—not processed so that some of that money is recouped? monetarily traded, rented, bought or sold, but held in a Aaron Brown: To some extent, that would be difficult PO—as a kind of holding vessel to use it at the best time now. It would come back to black fish, which were of year, when that fishery may be on, rather than trying really stamped out through the vessel monitoring system to spread 600 tonnes over 10 months. Also, if you and designated ports legislation, whereby vessels now cannot use that resource, it goes back into the national have to book in three hours in advance and declare their pot. We believe that has a huge degree of simplicity to catch. Effectively, the only way to do it would be coming it, legislatively and operationally. It would provide the in and mis-declaring that you did not have those fish— flexibility for vessels to use that fish at the best time of because otherwise you would be declaring them, and year and, obviously, it would allow it to be reabsorbed the Government would know they were there—and into the national pool. That is what we would like to see. 67 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 68

The Chair: I call Alistair Carmichael. We have nine Aaron Brown: I absolutely agree with you. That is minutes left, and four Members wish to speak. why Fishing for Leave has been absolutely explicit right from the start that FQAs as they stand—the current Q142 Mr Carmichael: The NFFO and the SFF told quota and the current FQAs—should not be touched. us this morning that they wanted to see a commencement We agree with you that it opens up a total legal and date on the face of the Bill, namely 31 December 2020. moral can of worms to turn round and say, “Okay, this What advantages would there be to such an amendment? shouldn’t have happened, but it has happened, but we’re Aaron Brown: We would agree with that. We have going to take it off you.” I absolutely agree. one—it is actually the first one that we have put together Our solution to preserving the FQAs, while moving ourselves—and we are obviously aiming for 2019. The to a more equitable system of management for both way that negotiations are going, it will probably end up fisherman and the fish was to convert them into this being 2019—hopefully, if God is merciful. Yes, we flexible catch composition entitlement. That is very would absolutely agree with that. Our big fear is that if simple to do. It is legislatively no problem, because all there is not a commencement date, the Secretary of you are doing is saying that your FQA is not an entitlement State has the powers to kick the can down the road—it to a kilogram; it is an entitlement to a percentage. So depends on what Government is there. We very much the resources all come back, and the current resources agree with a commencement date, preferably 2019, when go into a national pool; that is divided out as time and we actually are a fully independent coastal state. everybody gets an equal stake of time to reach their We have made it clear—I would like to put it on potential, but those biggest quota holders, both in the the record—that the transition is an existential threat to south-west and the north-east, which have heavily invested the industry: we leave, but we then sign up to re-obey the in FQAs, get the benefit of their investment, because CFP—we have to obey all EU law—and they can when the fleet’s national average might work out at enforce any detrimental legislation that they please, 5% cod in the North sea, those who have invested which they have every incentive to do, because under heavily in FQAs would get their 30% or 40% or whatever. UNCLOS article 62, paragraph 2, if a state cannot We think that is a fair way to do it. catch its own resources, it must give the surplus to its neighbours. The EU has absolutely every incentive—they The Chair: Okay. I call Owen Smith. have even mentioned it in their own studies by the PECH committees, that this could happen—to run a Q144 Owen Smith: Are you disappointed that, two bulldozer over the top of the UK fleet. and a half years after Brexit, so little seems to be We implore Members: fishing cannot be in a transition. resolved in concrete terms for the future of the fisheries? Obviously, with the wider deal, the big problem is that Aaron Brown: You have no idea the level of my the EU says that there must be a future relationship or disappointment. we are into the backstop, and that future relationship for fisheries will be based on current access and quota. Q145 Owen Smith: Perhaps you could tell us in a That is not conjecture; the EU has said quite clearly minute. Are you worried that several Cabinet members that Gibraltar and fisheries are getting it, in the words have warned that transition could go on for as long as of Mr Macron—via my rusty French translation. There four years? is a huge danger of fishing going into that, so as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said in the Aaron Brown: Yes, absolutely. That makes it worse. It Chamber, given the current poor state of the negotiations pours petrol on the bonfire that I have described to you. as they have been conducted, every red line has been In the transition, the EU has every incentive to run a breached. If the Government truly had a commitment bulldozer over the top of us. They can abolish the to fisheries not getting mangled again—bartered a second 12-mile limit; they could fully enforce the discard ban in time—they would not have been in the transition in the choke species and, obviously, we would not be able to first place. implement policy to mitigate that, such as suggested in the Bill. They would be able to barter UK resources in The Chair: Thank you. I want to get Members in. international swaps, because we will not be party to I call David Duguid. international agreements but the EU will be making them on our behalf. Q143 David Duguid: Thank you, Mr Hanson. Mr Brown, The other thing that is really devastating right round there has been a lot of talk today about the ownership the country is that currently the UK relies on a lot of of quotas. As Mr Carmichael said earlier, if we were to swaps in the EU, to get in fish that would otherwise design this again from scratch, we would not start from probably be ours under a zonal attachment. We will not where we are. A lot of what you describe sounds like it be able to do that because we will not actually be sitting might work if you were starting from scratch, but I at the table any more. So we will be trapped in this kind cannot help but feel a bit squeamish about the idea of of halfway house, where the EU has every incentive to taking something away from someone who owns take a great big stick and beat us with it like a piñata. It something—I am a Conservative; I cannot help myself. is not a position that I think is equitable for the survival I do not see that as being fair. Not only does it in of the industry. To be brutally honest, by the time we essence involve taking ownership of an asset away from get round to a new British policy, if we are not shovelled someone, even over time, but how fair do you think it is into the backstop, of which there is a high likelihood, that the fishermen who benefit, the smaller fishermen there will not be a fleet left to take advantage of anyway. who would get a bigger share of the quota, in some previous generations might have benefited financially Q146 Mr Sweeney: Whether it is the smaller under-10 from selling that quota to the larger fishermen in the shellfish boats working out of the west coast ports, such first place? as Stornoway or Oban, or the pelagic and white fish 69 Public Bill Committee 4 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 70 fleets running out of the big commercial ports, such as just put them on the back of a lorry and run them down Fraserburgh and Peterhead, what benefit to Scottish the road. We want to see 60% beneficial ownership of ports would there be of introducing an economic link of any British vessel—that is no different from the other landing at least 50% of all fish in Scottish ports? Nordic countries—to avoid foreign nationals or Aaron Brown: I am fully supportive of that. We have conglomerates buying out the UK fleet. gone further and said 60%, and not just for landings. We would also like to see 60% British crew, but with a There is a huge benefit from that. Currently just now, five-year or thereabouts dispensation for foreign crew, the flagship problem that Britain has, after the Factortame until we rebuild the future generation back into the case, is that under freedom of establishment and freedom industry to replace the one we have lost. The economic of movement, any EU national could come in and buy link absolutely needs to be there and we implore you to up British entitlement. Obviously, with the British fleet accept that that is an amendment that needs to go in. struggling with so much loss of its own resources, and The Conservatives tried to do it in 1988 with the Merchant regulatory ineptitude,many family fishermen felt compelled Shipping Act. I argue that if it is good enough for to sell. That is huge problem just now as we see on the Mrs Thatcher, then it should be good enough for this west coast, in Lochinver. I think it was £30 million of Government as well. fish went through Lochinver and there was not a single indigenous fishing boat. That needs to be tightened up The Chair: I think that brings us almost to the end of on. There is a huge benefit, not just to the fisherman the session. It is good to hear Mrs Thatcher still being and their communities, but also to processors and market quoted 38 years after she gained office. On behalf of the share. Committee, thank you, Mr Brown, for your contribution. Norway’s crowning glory is not actually its fishing Ordered, That further consideration be now fleet. Norway’s crowning glory is its dominance in adjourned.—(George Eustice.) processing and marketing globally. That is something that Britain could equally compete in with the resource 3.59 pm we have got. We would like to see 60% landings into the Adjourned till Thursday 6 December at half-past UK, sold and processed, because otherwise people will Eleven o’clock. 71 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 72

Written evidence to be reported to the FISH03 National Federation of Fishermen’sOrganisations House FISH01 Angling Trust FISH02 Greenpeace UK

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT GENERAL COMMITTEES

Public Bill Committee

FISHERIES BILL

Third Sitting

Thursday 6 December 2018

(Morning)

CONTENTS Examination of witnesses. Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.

PBC (Bill 278) 2017 - 2019 No proofs can be supplied. Corrections that Members suggest for the final version of the report should be clearly marked in a copy of the report—not telephoned—and must be received in the Editor’s Room, House of Commons,

not later than

Monday 10 December 2018

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2018 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. 73 Public Bill Committee 6 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 74

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: JAMES GRAY,DAVID HANSON,†MR LAURENCE ROBERTSON,SIR DAVID CRAUSBY

† Aldous, Peter (Waveney) (Con) † O’Hara, Brendan (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) † Brown, Alan (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP) Pennycook, Matthew (Greenwich and Woolwich) † Carmichael, Mr Alistair (Orkney and Shetland) (Lab) (LD) † Pollard, Luke (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) † Debbonaire, Thangam (Bristol West) (Lab) (Lab/Co-op) † Duguid, David (Banff and Buchan) (Con) † Smith, Owen (Pontypridd) (Lab) † Eustice, George (Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries † Stewart, Iain (Milton Keynes South) (Con) and Food) † Sweeney, Mr Paul (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co- † Grant, Bill (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con) op) † Hill, Mike (Hartlepool) (Lab) † Tracey, Craig (North Warwickshire) (Con) † Hollinrake, Kevin (Thirsk and Malton) (Con) † Jones, Mr Marcus (Nuneaton) (Con) Gail Poulton, Lis Gerhold, Committee Clerks † Lefroy, Jeremy (Stafford) (Con) † Morris, James (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con) † attended the Committee

Witnesses

Rebecca Newsom, Head of Politics, Greenpeace

Andrew Clayton, Project Director, Pew

Helen McLachlan, UK Programme Manager for Fisheries at WWF, Greener UK

Debbie Crockard, Senior Fisheries Policy Advocate, Marine Conservation Society

Andrew Brown, Director, Sustainability and Public Affairs, Macduff Shellfish

Andrew Pillar, Director, Interfish/Northbay Pelagic

Daniel Whittle, Managing Director, Whitby Seafoods Ltd

Mike Park OBE, Chief Executive, Scottish White Fish Producers Association Limited 75 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 76

difficult if there is a situation that requires reactivity. Public Bill Committee That is one of the biggest weaknesses, but one of the strengths—one of the strongest things that came out of Thursday 6 December 2018 the last reform of the common fisheries policy—was the legally binding requirement to fish at maximum sustainable (Morning) yield, which is definitely something that we would like to see. [MR LAURENCE ROBERTSON in the Chair] Rebecca Newsom: We would say that the strengthened Fisheries Bill version of article 17 of the CFP was an important step forward, but it has not been implemented in the way 11.30 am that we need in terms of environmental and social The Committee deliberated in private. criteria. We welcome the transposition of article 17 into the Bill, but it urgently needs to be strengthened in Examination of Witnesses order to deliver on environmental, social, and local Rebecca Newsom, Andrew Clayton, Helen McLachlan economic objectives. and Debbie Crockard gave evidence. Helen McLachlan: I agree with my colleagues and just add that the commitment to take a more ecosystems- 11.31 am based approach towards our fisheries management was The Chair: I welcome our witnesses. We have until a welcome inclusion in the CFP, and we need to take 12.15 for this session. Will the witnesses very briefly that broader perspective—take fisheries out of a silo introduce themselves, please? and look at the environmental impact, not just on target Debbie Crockard: Good morning. My name is Debbie stocks but broader than that, on other marine species Crockard and I am the senior fisheries policy advocate and habitats. for the Marine Conservation Society. Helen McLachlan: Good morning. I am Helen Q148 George Eustice: Is it your view that if we move McLachlan, fisheries programme manager for WWF away from the multilateral kind of discussion that takes UK. place at December Council, with qualified majority Andrew Clayton: I am Andrew Clayton from the Pew voting being the underlying principle for decision making, Charitable Trusts. and instead we move to something that is more of a Rebecca Newsom: I am Rebecca Newsom, heading bilateral agreement between the UK and the EU, and up the politics team at Greenpeace. We have a history of given that we have set out clear environmental objectives working on marine issues. that we have brought across from the EU in clause 1 of Helen McLachlan: I should have said that I am also the Bill, then to answer Andrew Clayton’s point, it here as chair of the Greener UK coalition of non- should be easier to deliver those objectives, because it governmental organisations, so representing the views will be a bilateral agreement rather than a qualified of Greener UK. majority vote? Andrew Clayton: I would agree that the deal making The Chair: Thank you very much for coming. Youare might be made a kind of cleaner process through that very welcome. I invite the Minister to ask the first bilateral discussion, but the big concern for me is that question. the precautionary objective brought into the Bill is insufficient. It actually undercuts the CFP; it is a lower Q147 The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food level of ambition than exists in the CFP at the moment. (George Eustice): Could each of you explain to us what The UK is signalling with this text as it stands that it you think the main flaws and weaknesses in the current will aim lower, and that will certainly make it harder to common fisheries policy are, but also which of its get that kind of agreement. elements and principles you would like to be retained in a domestic Bill? Andrew Clayton: I think the biggest weakness in the Q149 George Eustice: Would you expand on that? I current common fisheries policy, following the reforms know that you have raised this point with me, and I can in 2013, is that those reforms have been under-implemented. make a direct comparison between what we have— For example, the legally binding requirement to fish at clause 1(3)—and article 2.2 of the CFP.With the absence sustainable levels that was written into the CFP was of targets that are now past, or they will be past by the classic EU fudge. It was put in there with a deadline of time this Bill is commenced, the wording is identical. 2015 where possible and by 2020 in any event, so we are Andrew Clayton: The fudge that was agreed in 2013, only now coming to the crunch in terms of delivering and the legally binding objective that at the time was that and making sure that fishing limits are sustainable welcomed as a big win for the UK in negotiating that when they are set each autumn. The Fisheries Minister legally binding requirement, was CFP article 2.2, which will no doubt have a torrid time in Brussels in two is written in two parts. The first part of the CFP weeks, trying to make sure that deadline is achieved. objective is an objective to restore biomass, defined in The fudges in agreeing those objectives have added terms of maximum sustainable yield. It was felt at the further delay to making that policy sustainable, even time that it was very difficult to make a biomass objective though a lot of work has been done in the four years legally binding, because you would be holding Ministers since the policy came into effect. to account for putting fish in the sea, so it was agreed at Debbie Crockard: One of the weaknesses of the CFP the time that there should be a second clause to that is its lack of flexibility and ability to react quickly when objective with the aspiration to restore biomass. The situations arise. That is something that can be quite second clause, which is the more important and more 77 Public Bill Committee 6 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 78 binding, actually relates to exploitation rates—setting do not have a baseline stock assessment or an understanding fishing limits. It is that more binding clause that brings of how much fish is in the water that we may be in those legal deadlines, saying that by 2015 where catching off-quota. What could be improved in the Bill possible and by 2020 in any event, fishing limits should to address that data deficiency? be set in line with that scientific advice on maximum Helen McLachlan: That is one of our concerns. It is sustainable yield. It is that binding part that we can not really addressed fully by the CFP either, which is hold Ministers to account to and it is that binding part why we think the Bill is a great opportunity for the UK that is having an impact in the EU decision making. to start to fill that gap. You are absolutely right: we do That is the kind of element that is in the forefront of not have an effective means of documenting what we Ministers’ minds when they are setting fishing limits in remove from the oceans. There are requirements to log the December Council. what is taken. We have operated a landings-based system to date, but we should now move over to a catch-based Q150 George Eustice: But the use of the term system, with which we should be able to monitor what “exploitation rate” was only in the context of describing comes up in the net. We are not able to do that now; the the 2015 where possible and by 2020 on all quota systems are simply not in place. We would like to see the stocks. Bill address that with a verifiable, fully documented Andrew Clayton: Yes. catch commitment, supported by the use of electronic monitoring in the first instance, for example. Q151 George Eustice: So it is the date that is the only As you say, it is not only the catch but what else thing— comes up in the nets that we can start to gather data on, Andrew Clayton: Personally, I think the date is a which can be fed into stock assessments, increasing moot point, because the UK is committed to achieving confidence in those assessments. That, circularly, is that date by 2020. I realise the timing of this Bill taking good for best management practice. We advocate a effect is uncertain, but either way the UK is committing verifiable, fully documented fishery approach with the to achieving that job. support of electronic monitoring on the vessel. When The net effect of removing that second clause is that under a piece of legislation that prohibits discarding, as the future Fisheries Bill would therefore just have an we are now, that activity occurs at sea, so we need some aspirational objective to restore biomass at some point means of monitoring effectively at sea to take account in the future, with no deadline. That still leaves Government of that. Improving data collection would be absolutely and Ministers under short-term pressure every autumn fulfilled by that requirement. to take that short-term view, to overfish in any given year, and there is always an excuse that can be made Q154 Luke Pollard: The Minister asked about MSY that overfishing for one more year might be justified in by 2020. The omission of the “by 2020” part, although some way, with this longer term biomass objective in problematic because it looks like the UK will not hit the mind. The history of the CFP shows us this, but it is not 2020 date, means that there is no target date in the even a historical point that I am making. We have just legislation, which is a de facto reduction in environmental literally agreed and signed up to a deal this week to set standards compared with the CFP, which is something limits for 2019 for mackerel higher than scientists advise, my party has concerns about. Recognising that we will and the only kind of saving grace in that decision was probably miss the 2020 date, what level do you think that the Commission announced that they would not be would be appropriate for the UK to reach an MSY able to do this again next year because of this 2020 figure? deadline. This deadline is biting at the moment; we need Andrew Clayton: I certainly agree that it is a de facto to stick to that and not go backwards on the progress reduction as the Bill stands. I would not necessarily we have made. make the assumption that the UK will miss the 2020 deadline, because the power is with the UK to set Q152 George Eustice: Finally on that, there is something fishing limits, or for the Council as part of the EU else in the Bill that is not in EU law: the requirement for process. The only difference between an overfished stock a joint fisheries statement. That is a statutory requirement and a sustainably fished stock are those decisions, and to have a plan agreed by all parts of the UK that sets they are in the power of Ministers. I therefore think that out how we will deliver those statutory objectives in we should certainly stick to that MSY commitment. clause 1. Is that not the right place to define and We have made a huge amount of progress, which is describe in more detail how to deliver that biomass an important point. This is not about some far-off objective? aspirational aim when it comes to setting fishing limits Debbie Crockard: That may be a good place to define in line with the MSY objective. For 2018, about 44% of it, but the problem with the joint fisheries statement is fishing limits were set higher than the scientific advice, that, under clause 6(2), if a national authority takes the but for stocks with MSY advice the percentage in line decision to act other than in accordance with the JFS, it with that advice was about 75%. We have made good simply has to state the reason why. There is no binding progress; we have taken a lot of pain on the way but the duty to follow that JFS. If it goes against the JFS and UK’s stocks are moving in the right direction, with sets fishing limits that are not legally bound, there is fishing pressure being brought closer to scientific advice, nothing to hold it to account in that situation. biomass recovering as a result, and profits for the fleet on aggregate rising at an all-time high as a result of that Q153 Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) progress. The important thing is not to go backwards. (Lab/Co-op): One of my concerns about the Bill is that it does not go far enough in addressing data deficiency. Q155 Luke Pollard: Can I ask about stock levels in We have data for a number of stocks, but for an awful relation to non-quota species such as cuttlefish? Cuttlefish lot of stocks—some quota and some non-quota—we live for only about two years, so there is a risk that if 79 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 80

[Luke Pollard] Debbie Crockard: The ambition here is for world-leading sustainable fisheries management. At the moment we you overfish in one year, you can significantly affect do not have a duty in this Fisheries Bill to meet the stock levels with huge potential future impact. We do objectives in the Bill. Those objectives cover a lot of not have a lot of data on cuttlefish at the moment. For very good things—sustainability and a precautionary those types of species, is there anything that could be approach—but without the duty there is no clear obligation included in the Bill to require or encourage greater data to deliver those objectives. Without that clear obligation collection? you are in a situation where they might not be met and Andrew Clayton: I would emphasise that the there is no obligation to meet. precautionary objective in the Bill refers to harvested species. The Bill aims to deal with all those stocks, Q158 Brendan O’Hara: Do you think that the Bill as whether they currently have a fishing limit or not. It is a it stands improves or will adversely affect conservation, note of concern that the CFP also does that—it talks sustainability and the eco-environment? about harvested species—and the CFP is going in the Debbie Crockard: It has the potential to improve it if opposite direction and removing fishing limits. Six limits it becomes binding. A lot of these objectives are very for deep sea species were removed just in November. It good, but they have to be binding; they have to allow us is a good opportunity for the UK to show more ambition to make those steps to world-leading sustainable fisheries. in managing those species better and gathering the data Without that binding obligation and without the obligation that is needed as the starting point. for MSY and without the improvements in CCTV and monitoring and information and data collection, we Q156 Luke Pollard: One of the areas about redistributing will struggle to prove that we are even making those quota, both new and potential if we get any drawdown changes to sustainability. from our EU friends, is allocating that on more economic, environmental and social grounds. Is that an area where, Q159 Brendan O’Hara: How confident are you that, from your point of view, there could be benefits in without that binding mechanism, this will work? terms of environmental protection and investment in Debbie Crockard: I think you just have to look, as coastal communities? Is that an area that you would Andrew said earlier, at the common fisheries policy. We support? have the binding objectives there, but there is still a lack Rebecca Newsom: Absolutely. Greenpeace is working of political push in many aspects to actually meet those with the Greener UK coalition as well as the New things. MSY was supposed to be put in place by 2015, Under Ten Fishermen’s Association, the Scottish Creel but it has been pushed back and back to the very last Fishermen’s Federation and Charles Clover’s Blue Marine point, which will be 2020. Without that binding obligation, Foundation, to push for a more robust approach to there is a lack of motivation. distributing quota—existing, new and future—on the Helen McLachlan: That was demonstrated by the basis of environmental and social criteria. It stands to CFP.The last reform introduced that binding commitment benefit the entire fishing industry in terms of driving a for a deadline. Prior to that, we consistently set limits race to the top for fleets of all sizes, which would have over and above that recommended by scientists. Since the opportunity to access fishing opportunities as long that binding commitment was brought in, we have as they conformed to environmental standards and started to see those trends going the right way: biomass things such as giving local employment to communities. increasing, fishing mortality decreasing, and trying to We see that as a huge opportunity. balance our fleet sizes appropriately to the resources available to them. This is good in terms of the commitment, Q157 Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP): but the application will be absolutely critical. To have What importance do you feel the Government attach in that duty and also the mechanisms around it in terms of this Bill to conservation, sustainability and protection monitoring what is coming up in the net, what we are of the ecosystem? removing from the sea and how we are being accountable for what we are removing, will be key to the success and Andrew Clayton: Referring to the objectives again, I the ability to say that we are talking about world leading think the fanfare with which the Bill was published fisheries. At the minute, without that, we are falling emphasised sustainability and put it at the heart of behind. what the Government are trying to achieve. The language in the objectives is ambitious to the extent that it Andrew Clayton: Also, it is not just about the application. mirrors some of the existing commitments. I have already The removal of the requirement to set fishing limits at described the serious concerns I have about the shortfall sustainable levels is a clear signal that we will aim lower, in the sustainability and precautionary objective. so it is not just the application. As drafted, it sends a message that we will go lower than the EU. Learning the lessons from the CFP, the important thing under this Bill is that the Government pave the way for implementation—that is why it requires slightly Q160 Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con): Sustainability more binding commitments in it—and through the is clearly important. Several of you have mentioned the joint statements, to ensure that is implemented in practice, remote electronic monitoring equipment, as have other with sufficient deadlines and some concrete detail. Fisheries witnesses. Is that technology sufficiently developed to is a policy area that suffers constantly from short-termism do what we want it to do? Is there any evidence from and highly politicised annual decisions. It is important where it is being used in other countries? that future Fisheries Ministers are not put under as Helen McLachlan: Yes, very much so. Electronic much pressure to make short-term, short-sighted decisions monitoring systems have developed quite rapidly in the as previous Fisheries Ministers have been. last decade and are now standard operational practice 81 Public Bill Committee 6 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 82 in certain fisheries around the world. In the US, for Q164 Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab): Good morning, example, the national administration there has taken everybody.Mr Clayton, could you give us more examples the decision that there is no need for further piloting; of species where there has been fishing well above the they just need to get on and do it. They currently have MSY in recent years? between 25% and 30% of their fleets covered by electronic Andrew Clayton: It might be useful to talk about a monitoring. New Zealand has just taken the decision to choke species, because that generates a lot of debate roll it out across the whole of their fleet. That is in the when we talk about setting objectives for sustainability process of happening. and the difficulties of dealing with stocks that have very Numerous other countries have started to adopt it, low levels of biomass and therefore very low levels in not just as a means of monitoring but in recognition the their scientific advice. There is a good example that will things that New Zealand cited, for example: reduction be discussed in the December Council: cod to the west of waste, so it incentivises more selectivity; reduction of of Scotland is a stock that has been overfished for discards; and greater economic returns, because you are decades. Fishing pressure is way too high and because no longer taking out lots of smaller fish but allowing biomass is so low, scientists advise a zero TAC or a zero them to stay in the water longer. Your biomass and the level of directed fishing. health of your stock in terms of the make-up of age That is proving very difficult because of where we are classes is better. Also, in terms of public confidence in in implementation of the CFP. In 2019, both a landing the fisheries, the ability to say, “This comes from a obligation and this MSY requirement—the deadline to highly sustainable fishery,” is a great thing. Coming end overfishing—will be approaching. What we need to back to your point on data provision, Mr Pollard, and do with those species is to find a way to reduce their catch. the data coming out of the system, being able to build Weneed to reduce bycatch and we need initiatives to ensure into the assessments gives greater confidence in that that they are not being fished at the high levels that they management. Quite often, if you have higher confidence have been under pressure from for years and years. levels in what you are talking about, your quotas start To meet the deadline, what is happening in the EU to increase because your confidence is greater. system at the moment is that they are considering There are benefits all around, and I think more and bycatch initiatives—small bycatch TACs that would be more Governments across the world are realising that. used to bring fishing pressure down. Member states It is a cost-effective and robust means of doing that. have plans to reduce the bycatch to try to restore that Here in the UK we have several vessels currently operating stock, because where we have stock that has been overfished with it and saying that they have benefited from it, to that level over such a long time, we have a huge because it has been able to demonstrate that sometimes disparity between the catches in that mixed fishery. what fishermen see in the water is not what they are That stock will hold back all the other perfectly sustainable being recommended by scientists, so they have said, catches that could be made in that fishery. What we “We can use this as a great tool to be able to say, have done for way too long is overfish and then hide ‘Actually, what we’re seeing is here.’” There is an ability discarding over the horizon. Now is the time when we to be very responsive in the management, turning it need to get to grips with the fishing mortality in that around very quickly—not quite in real time, but very fishery and allow that stock to recover so that we can close to it—and allowing adaptive management. get the highest yield out of the fishery overall. In this particular case it is not an example of MSY Q161 Mr Jones: From the New Zealand example that being used to set that limit; no fisheries scientist on the you cited, do you know how long it is taking New planet would advise catching that stock, because it is in Zealand authorities to make this happen on their fleet? such a dire state. The MSY level of catch for that would be about 500 tonnes, but zero catch is advised because it Helen McLachlan: They introduced the intent last is in such a poor state. That is one example of overfishing. year and they are phasing it in. I mentioned mackerel earlier, which is the UK’s most valuable stock. It supports so many jobs in the UK and Q162 Mr Jones: Over what period? is a really important iconic species for us. It is also a Helen McLachlan: I do not think they have a detailed stock that has been overfished in recent years. That is end point. The commitment is for all vessels going to partly to do with the lack of agreement between the sea to have this technology. They are rolling it out various coastal states that are fishing the stock. Not all currently. It is not something that will happen overnight. coastal states are within the CFP; we have to negotiate You cannot all of a sudden one day have a vessel that with Iceland, Norway and the Faroes. does not have the technology. The advice for this year was for a huge cut of that stock, because our luck ran out. We have been overfishing it, and taking too much of a gamble with that stock. Q163 Mr Jones: That is the point I am making here. Finally, a huge cut was proposed to try to get things You are asking for it to be put into the legislation, and back on track. That is, of course, unpalatable. The main clearly in that case at some point vessels would need to thing that we need to do is to move away from that be compliant, so I am trying to get a feel for what that boom-and-bust cycle, so that we do not keep fishing at really means, bearing in mind that there are some the absolute maximum pressure, or even overfishing, timescales that we are working to. and then find it surprising when scientists advise drastic Helen McLachlan: I think a reasonable timescale is cuts. We need to move away from drastic cuts and get perhaps over a two-year period. You have to make the some stability in our fisheries. decision about what system you are going to go with, you have to get the technology on to vessels and set up Q165 Owen Smith: You have obviously been very on the port side. Two years to get the fleet operational is clear that you think that this is a less ambitious set of reasonable. targets, and less binding on Ministers, than the CFP. 83 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 84

[Owen Smith] Debbie Crockard: The advisory councils are also an example of collaboration between the other interest How would you repair the Bill to make it more ambitious groups—OIGs—rather than the NGOs, on the advisory and more binding? Would you simply transpose into the councils, and the industry. While we do not always Bill that second part of article 2.2 of the CFP, or would agree, and it can take a lot of time to come to any you do something else? agreement, there is a lot of really useful discussion and Andrew Clayton: I understand the head scratching collaboration in those groups. about the 2015 deadline and the 2020 deadline.I understand that that might not be appropriate for the Bill at this Q168 Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab): This is a bit of a stage, but Greener UK has submitted amendments that repeat, but are you in favour of redistributing quotas would correct this and ensure that a fishing limit is set more fairly to under-10s? in line with scientific advice. Rebecca Newsom: Yes we are, but we want to stress that the way to achieve that is through introducing Q166 Owen Smith: Finally,do you think that recreational transparent and objective environmental and social criteria fishing could play a part in improving sustainability? that all fleets need to abide by. It is not necessarily a That is to say, certain stocks could be preserved for black-and-white dichotomy between small scale and recreational fishing, as has happened in New Zealand large scale, although of course the new approach would and elsewhere. stand to benefit the smaller-scale fleets significantly, Andrew Clayton: Yes, I think it is time that recreational given their current fishing practices where, for example, fishers were at the table and involved in management about 90% of the under-10s use passive gears. decisions, because they bring a large amount of money into the economy and are involved in fishing mortality Q169 Mike Hill: Do you think that would have a as well. They should be a player in the system. positive economic impact on localities such as Hartlepool, where we hardly have a fleet but where the fleet could The Chair: We have less than 15 minutes remaining, grow given a fairer distribution of quotas? so brief questions and brief answers might be helpful. Rebecca Newsom: Absolutely. I refer the Committee Q167 Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con): My apologies back to the evidence from Jerry Percy on Tuesday. To for arriving late. In my experience, fisheries management add to that, the social criteria that we would suggest is currently incredibly adversarial. We in this place, were used would need to be developed through public parliamentarians, and non-governmental organisations consultation and advice from experts. They should include, very much promote a more collaborative approach, but not be limited to, things such as local employment with the fishermen being the solution. Do you think and port and processing opportunities. That is a way to that that will be achievable in practice, and how do we bed in local economic benefits. make it achievable? We talk about collaboration the whole time, but in the real world it can be very difficult. Q170 Mike Hill: I have one last question on climate Helen McLachlan: Again, it comes down to the processes, change, which is hardly mentioned in the Bill. Are the the implementation and how we are going to take it provisions adequate to abide by international climate forward. There are some good models of collaboration change obligations? What are the implications of climate and effective delivery. For example, the Scottish change for fish stocks and marine ecosystems? Administration have taken a very strong approach to Andrew Clayton: I can say something about the level that, really bringing the catching sector, the processors of precaution and the importance of building resilience. and the NGOs around the table to have very frank As managers of fish stocks, as I said earlier, we cannot discussions about what needs to happen if we are to put fish in the sea and we cannot control biomass meet certain objectives. That is a good model, and one directly.All we can do, when we are managing exploitation that could be replicated by the different Administrations. and managing the fishing fleet, is operate with a suitable We will not deliver sustainable fisheries management by level of precaution and make sure that stocks can be having conflict and not having the catching sector working resilient if they face other pressures. alongside administrators and the NGOs, because we all Fishing pressure obviously has a huge impact on fish represent important constituents. stocks, but so do climate change, habitat degradation Rebecca Newsom: Adopting a more fair, equitable and acidification—there are all kinds of other threats and sustainable approach to the distribution of fishing that fish stocks face. It is about leaving them enough opportunities in the future is of fundamental importance space to be resilient to those other pressures as well. to securing the buy-in of fishers across our coastlines. On the economics, I wanted to say that the concept of We just have to look at the current unequal distribution, maximum sustainable yield is primarily an economic which can also contribute to unsustainable outcomes, concept that gained ground after the second world war. to recognise that we need to see urgent change. It is about providing as much protein for hungry people’s In practice, all we are saying is required to deliver on plates as possible. It is not a green benchmark; it is not that is a couple of small tweaks to clause 20, which something that you would start from if you were looking essentially removes historical catch levels as the prevailing only at the environment—you might want to be more criterion for determining the distribution of fishing cautious with some other measure. opportunities in the future and requires that environmental, It is a happy coincidence that we, as green organisations, social and local economic criteria are prioritised instead. find that we are advocating a high-yield, highly profitable, We need to think about the political buy-in that can be highly economically successful approach. That is what achieved by that and, in turn, how that helps us to other countries around the world have seen when they deliver on the higher-scale MSY objectives that we have have delivered MSY. It is win-win for the environment been talking about. and for the bottom line of fishing businesses. 85 Public Bill Committee 6 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 86

Q171 Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/ that a few very small changes are made to that article Co-op): I would like to ask about the legal implications essentially to remove historic catch levels as one of the of potentially redistributing quotas. What do you envisage determining factors for distributing quota and to prioritise the complexities of that might be? How can we address environmental, social and local economic criteria instead. them as part of the process? What is your take on That would be the tangible, most important change on monopolistic activity in the fishing industry? the face of the Bill. In terms of the follow-up process, Rebecca Newsom: Greenpeace has taken independent the change in the Bill would set the principles and the legal advice on the issue. The conclusion was that, from legal framework for how quota should be distributed in a legal perspective, the Government and any other the future, but it would then become the responsibility relevant national authorities can feel very confident in and powers of the relevant national authorities, including proceeding with this new approach to quota distribution. the devolved Administrations, to run their own public, The prospects of a successful judicial review are very transparent consultation process to determine exactly low, and the reasons for that are twofold. First, in the what those criteria are, how it works in practice and to Brexit process, the proposed amendment is being put implement it. into a new Westminster Act of Parliament. As such, after we leave the EU, Parliament will be supreme and The Chair: We now have to conclude this session. I the law will have superiority to case law. Secondly, the thank all the witnesses for attending; your evidence has 2012 legal case discussed on Tuesday concluded that been very helpful. while there may be some property rights attached to fixed quota allocations, those are not applicable if the quota has not been used. In any case, it is within the power of Examination of Witnesses the Secretary of State to allocate as they see fit. Taken Andrew Brown, Andrew Pillar, Daniel Whittle and together, our conclusion is that such a measure would Mike Park gave evidence. be clearly compatible with national and international law. 12.15 pm The Chair: I thank our new set of witnesses for Q172 Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP): joining us. Could you please introduce yourselves very Good morning, everybody. We have not discussed the briefly? fact that the Bill includes a proposal for a discard Andrew Pillar: My name is Andrew Pillar. I am prevention scheme. Do you have a view as to whether representing Interfish and Northbay Pelagic, which are the measures are transparent enough? What are the primary processing and exporting businesses in Plymouth risks of doing that? Is it the right approach to avoiding and Peterhead, but I am also wearing a hat here on discards? behalf of the Scottish Pelagic Processors Association. Helen McLachlan: Discards are a major issue and we Mike Park: My name is Mike Park and I am chief welcome the continued commitment to trying to minimise executive of the Scottish White Fish Producers Association, discards overall. Our view on the measures in the Bill is representing over 240 businesses. that it is not quite clear what consequences or unintended Andrew Brown: My name is Andrew Brown and I am consequences might arise. We would like to see more the director for sustainability and public affairs at Macduff effort being placed on being clear about what it is we are Shellfish, which is the biggest shellfish processor in taking out of the water and how much we really do need Europe. to discard. Going back to electronic monitoring at sea, we need to get a clear case. What we are concerned Daniel Whittle: I am Daniel Whittle from Whitby about at the end of the day is what we are removing Seafoods, which is the UK’s largest scampi manufacturer. from our ocean systems and how we can account for We are somewhat unique, in that we are entirely supplied that sustainably. I think we would like to see more focus from the UK and supply into the UK. I would say we on that, rather than penalties per se, particularly as we are also representing Northern Ireland, because we are not quite clear on the intended or unintended have a factory there and are very dependent on its consequences at this point. supply. Debbie Crockard: Especially because the original intention of the landing obligation was to improve Q174 George Eustice: Obviously, some of our most selectivity, to make fishing more sustainable and to important fisheries agreements are those with Norway reduce waste. If there are uncertainties and things that and the Faroe Islands and the coastal states agreements are not clear within the Bill, we need to ensure that the on species such as mackerel, all of which are currently legislation is still trying to meet those initial intentions. handled by the EU, where we do not have a direct seat at the table in the way the other coastal states do. Would you explain some of the consequences of that lack of Q173 Alan Brown: Rebecca, if we go back to quotas representation by virtue of the fact that we are an EU and quota allocations, you are talking about wanting to member? see more transparency, environmental measures and Andrew Pillar: I have attended many of those meetings social benefits. You spoke about public consultation with teams travelling from the UK, and it is an extremely developing that. What do you actually want to see on frustrating position to witness that power being taken the face of the Bill? That is what we are looking at just out of the hands of a team representing the UK and now. How do we get those protections in the Bill? placed in the hands of the EU, making decisions that Rebecca Newsom: In terms of the Bill, we are talking are not best aligned with the interests of the UK catching specifically about clause 20, which starts off as a and processing sector. We have seen in recent years this transposition of article 17 of the CFP.We are suggesting becoming a very difficult issue in terms of negotiating 87 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 88 away access to UK waters, in the coastal states agreements, now been balanced against north Norway cod, which for a period of time that has been inconsistent with the the Spanish and French are lobbying heavily to get. best interests of the UK. That could mean that we do not get the haddock we Mike Park: You will be aware that the EU-Norway want in the North sea. The answer to your question, negotiations are going on in London as we speak. They Minister, is yes, it works against us at times. failed to come to a conclusion last week. I have been going to these negotiations for over 25 years, I think, Q176 George Eustice: All of you export some of your and one aspect of the negotiations that we look at with products. In the event of a World Trade Organisation envy is the Norwegian Government always sitting with scenario with most favoured nation tariffs, how high is their sector. They normally have five or six fishermen the tariff on the fresh fish that you sell, and are you bound roundabout them so that they can feed from more worried about tariffs or the possibility of border one another in terms of what the appropriate output inspection posing some disruption to the supply chain? should be. Which concerns you most when it comes to trade? I also feel sorry for some of the member state officials, Andrew Brown: As a shellfish processor, we are highly such as the officials from the Department for Environment, reliant on exports, particularly to Europe, which is Food and Rural Affairs and Marine Scotland, who sit the destination for 95% of our scallops, for example. At in these meetings, because very often they are kept out the moment we enjoy free and frictionless trade, so the of the heads of delegation meetings, where the detail of implementation of MFN tariffs would have significant the discussions and sometimes the conclusion agreements effects. We have done some calculations for the shellfish are set. For 25 years, we have sat there, looking at industry as a whole. Weare looking at perhaps £43 million Norway with envy, thinking that at some point we in additional costs on shellfish exporters if we moved to would like to do that, and I think that, as we move that, plus, with third-country agreements with the likes forward, perhaps we will. For us, it has always been a of South Korea, probably another £5 million on top of negative that the fishermen of Europe are not talked to that—that is per annum. Whether some of that can be in any way other than a loose way, and we are certainly absorbed by the customers and buyers in Europe is a not bound into any of the negotiations to feed in in an difficult one to see. It is a competitive market; therefore, appropriate manner. we have concerns that this will have an impact on our Andrew Brown: I can say a little about this: I used to competitiveness and on how well we are able to sell our be involved in these negotiations for the Scottish product. Government. It was very difficult to try to continue the The non-tariff barriers are equally, if not more, dialogue with the industry as the negotiations went on. important. If we move to a stage where we need health One of the roles I had was to speak to Mike and his like checks and border checks at both sides of the border, as the negotiations continued. I think there is something that will cause a delay. For shellfish—a highly perishable, in what Mike has suggested. high-premium product—a 12-hour delay can reduce Daniel Whittle: I do not get to go to the negotiations, value by almost 50%. If you are delayed for 48 hours, but in the previous session there was talk about TAC you have more or less lost that consignment. The non-tariff being set above the recommended scientific advice, and aspects are really significant for the shellfish sector and I know a good example of where that happens: area 7 for other sectors. in the Irish sea, for nephrops, where there is a large, 20,000-tonne fishery. Every year they set it above that because the French and the Spanish have quotas that Q177 George Eustice: On scallops, the MFN tariff is are largely unused, so they set the TAC above what the 8%. Arguably, that is a bit like VAT—it is a tax on the recommended scientific advice is, to allow that to happen. consumer, ultimately. I know some in the fish processing There is nuance in when the TAC is set above what the sector have said, “Yes, we would obviously rather have scientific advice is. tariff-free trade, but don’t sell out the catching sector on our behalf.” I wondered whether an 8% tariff, at the end of the day, given the fluctuations in market price anyway, Q175 George Eustice: In conclusion on this point of is hugely problematic. the important fisheries in the North sea, is it your view Andrew Brown: Of course, we do not welcome such a that British interests get traded away by the EU in order tariff. We have to remember that the shellfish sector is to get advantages for other member states? not really gaining anything in additional quotas through Andrew Pillar: The opportunity for us is not to be Brexit. These are non-quota stocks, other than the underestimated—to be at the table as a coastal state. langoustine, which we already have a very large share That is the prize we in the industry see. Mike touched of, so there is no benefit to us—to the shellfish sector—from on that point about the industry working with Government the Brexit process. We do not expect our catches to be to best achieve those objectives. There will be some able to go up much, and we require access to some trading and negotiations, but they need to be right for European waters for scallops and crabs, so there are the UK and at this moment we are not in that position multiple threats to the shellfish sector. We need to because we are not a coastal state, but this framework ensure that the sector is not forgotten about in the will enable that and delivery of a coastal state has to be larger discussion on fin fishing. the objective. Mike Park: There is a typical example going on just Luke Pollard: In previous sessions, you might have now in the current negotiations, where the quota of heard me asking about a national landing obligation—a North sea haddock next year will come down by requirement to land fish caught under a UK quota in approximately 30%. We would like to get some trade in UK ports. Would that have an impact on the processing from Norway to help us through next year, but that has side of the businesses that you represent? In the interest 89 Public Bill Committee 6 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 90 of complete disclosure, I also declare an interest, because To give our perspective on the landing obligation, in Mr Pillar and Interfish are based in the constituency Northern Ireland, it is challenging that there is a whiting that I represent. What impact would a landing obligation bycatch. There has been a lot of work on selectivity to to land fish in UK ports have on your sector? Would it reduce it. I fear that the approach being taken, which is be beneficial? “Let’s have a deadline,” is not a practical approach. The Andrew Pillar: One of the key things in the port that approach should be that fisheries continue to try to we originate from, in Plymouth, is the market—the remove unwanted catch from their nets, but it should auction—and the opportunity for fishermen at all levels not be deadline-driven; it should be a continuous to access that and sell their catch. That is from the improvement approach. under-10 fleet right through to larger vessels. As it Andrew Brown: On the foreign vessel conditions, the stands, that business has absolutely no security and no Bill needs a little more explanation. Each fishing certainty that there will be a supply of fish coming into administration is able to establish its own licence and that marketplace if operators were to choose to put therefore its own licence conditions, and each fishing their fish into the back of a lorry and send it directly administration can in principle establish licences for overseas, which can and does happen. In some ports foreign vessels as well. A problem could exist whereby a around the country, that has evolved under the CFP to British or a foreign fishing vessel, fishing in different a situation where markets have failed and there has not waters around the UK, might be subject to different been the opportunity to have a diverse marketplace for licence conditions. It is not clear to me in the Bill how small, medium and larger vessels. that will operate. That could indeed have an effect on In the pelagic sector, the opportunities around UK fishermen who fish in more than one fishing employment export, upstream and downstream, are administration’s waters and on what licence conditions wide-ranging. Tobe competitive in many of those markets, will apply. it is essential to have a critical mass—a business must Mike Park: In Scottish waters, we do a lot to try and have that critical mass. In the UK, we operate with very protect the stocks. We have closed areas for spawning different bases for business in terms of business rates, females of cod. We have other areas for abundances, labour costs and harbour costs,which do not put processing and of course we have a network of marine protected on an even playing field with many of our competitors, areas, like everyone else. One of the things that we ask but we must recognise that it is a competitive market. for going forward—it is a positive, but a negative for What we do have is some of the best, highest quality our fishermen—is that we avoid the areas of high seafood that we will stake our case for being sustainably density. Chances are that that means we catch less fish produced within British waters. That is a highly desirable in terms of economic viability. We could go to area A product and not to be undervalued. and catch loads of fish, but we do not; we avoid it. We Mike Park: From a Scottish perspective, in terms of go to area B where we catch less, but it allows stocks to landing to the market, up in Scotland all our vessels recover. We do not feel there is equivalence across the operate locally. We do not fish north Norway, the EU because some of our EU colleagues enter these Mediterranean or the Pacific or anything; we fish around areas while we have them closed unilaterally. On issues our coasts. like that, in the future we would have to ensure that whatever happens there is a degree of equivalence, so The vast majority of the demersal fish comes in to that when we make a rule in UK waters, that rule ports such as Peterhead, which is the largest white fish applies to everyone. I am sure it will. port in Europe, and Fraserburgh, which is the largest nephrops port in Europe. You see the investment going on there: we have a new fish market there, and last week Q178 Luke Pollard: We heard in one of our evidence we landed 36,000 boxes of fish into that fish market, sessions on Tuesday that some fish are caught in UK which is unprecedented elsewhere. You see a significant waters, exported to China for processing and then brought investment in new vessels—replacement vessels, not back. I think an awful lot of people will have found that additional vessels. You see an enthusiasm up there, very disturbing. The issue of food miles has dropped which is built on the fact that the stocks are on our from the political agenda, especially with the focus on shores, we take care of them and we land it back to our trade deals with countries far away. How do consumers markets. There is a small amount that goes to northern know whether they are buying fish that has been caught, Denmark for the Christmas market—we utilise their landed and processed in the UK, or something that has market for saithe over that period—but apart from that, travelled all the way round the world and back again to everything largely comes back home to Scotland. get to your plate? Daniel Whittle: Can I ask a question? Where did your Luke Pollard: One of our concerns about the Bill is suit come from? [Laughter.] And where was it made? the potential for standards to be different on British fishing boats versus foreign fishing boats fishing in Luke Pollard: It’s from Marks and Spencer, like all British waters. From your point of view, for those who the best suits. trade here, is there a concern that there could be a differential in terms of cost base, compliance and Daniel Whittle: Are you bothered about where it has regulations, environmental protections and marine safety or has not been in the supply chain? You trust Marks if there is not a level playing field between British and Spencer to act ethically, so why would you scrutinise fishing boats and foreign fishing boats in our waters? a fishery? Daniel Whittle: I have a suggestion on that front. There was discussion about remote monitoring. You Q179 Luke Pollard: The difference is that there is a could make that part of a requirement of fishing in UK label so that I can see where it is made. As a consumer, if waters, so that there would be a level playing field. I rock up to a supermarket and buy some fish, how do I 91 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 92

[Luke Pollard] has been adequately heard in the debate, or do you feel that you have been slightly subsumed into the big know where it has come from? Can we get clarity for fishing producers and big organisations? Are your concerns British consumers who might be under the impression adequately covered in the Bill? that, because we are an island nation, the fish we buy Andrew Brown: Obviously, fisheries have played a have simply been plucked out of the sea and brought in? prominent role in Brexit and there has been a lot of Daniel Whittle: Ethically, should you not be wearing publicity about the possibility of additional quotas. a British wool suit? The fact that inshore fisheries and shellfish fisheries will not gain from that has probably been underplayed. Luke Pollard: Perhaps we can do less on suits and There is certainly that aspect to it. We want to see tools more on fish. in the Bill to allow Ministers to manage shellfish stock sustainably. If anything, shellfish stock management has probably lagged considerably behind demersal and The Chair: Order. pelagic management because of some inherent difficulties Mike Park: Perhaps I can answer the question that in the stocks, given their patchy distribution across UK the hon. Member posed. In Scotland, I chair a group waters. called the Scottish Fisheries Sustainable Accreditation However, it has always been the kind of fishery that Group. That group focuses on ensuring that we build new entrants have come into, because if you are a new stocks up to sustainable levels and that our fishermen entrant to a fishery you need three things: a licence, a harvest stocks appropriately in terms of selectivity and vessel and a quota. Those are all expensive, but to get other things. Once we reach a certain standard, we put into the shellfish sector you do not need your quota, them through the gold standard of the Marine Stewardship because they are non-quota stocks. The main way to get Council certification. The consumer is more concerned into the fishing industry is through the shellfish sector, about whether she is buying a sustainably caught fish— and to try to build up a quota from there. That means quality fish—than she is about where it is filleted. By that the entrance to shellfish fisheries is not very well attaching that mark we ensure we give comfort to the controlled. Consequently,it is difficult to use management consumer. I think that where it is filleted or whatever is levers. a bit of a red herring—excuse the pun. At the end of the day, the consumer is focused on whether the fish comes We would try to increase the significance, or the from a sustainable source and whether it is of good relative importance, that shellfish fisheries have in the quality. That is what we as an industry group actually Bill. Scallop shellfish fisheries are the most important ensure. fisheries in England, and the third most important fisheries in the whole of the UK, in terms of value. Andrew Pillar: One of the things that we would like They have not been given the kind of management, to see strengthened is the recognition around labelling attention and science that they need. and for labelling to be consistent with the chain of custody and provenance—where a fish has been through its life cycle. That really is driven by point of landing. If Q181 Brendan O’Hara: You talked about the financial something is British, that point of landing is key because and time cost of any barriers being put up. It is essential you start to derive the value upstream and downstream that a lot of the live product gets to continental in the chain of jobs dependent on that fish being Europe as quickly as it can. Are you confident from produced. what you have seen in the Bill, and from what you Andrew Brown: I agree with what Mike said about have heard from the debate surrounding the Bill, that accreditation. Macduff is working hard on accreditation those time costs in particular will not damage your for nephrops stocks and scallop stocks. That is important industry? to us, and, post Brexit, accreditation and certification Andrew Brown: I am not sure that much can be done will become that much more important to guarantee the on this on the face of the Bill, but obviously, on how sustainability of our stocks. ports are managed and facilities maintained, within the Bill there is certainly the power to award grants to Alan Brown: Andrew, you commented that access to support infrastructure to someplace where you might EU markets and the EU workforce is critical for business have looked into their storage and freezing facilities. and industry. What will the ending of free movement But yes, you are right; any kind of delay becomes quite mean for your industry? Have you seen any impact of significant. A two-hour delay on a motorway heading Brexit already since the referendum? Also, what are towards a port can mean you miss the ferry, which can your views on future immigration policy? The UK lead to a day’s delay. An awful lot needs to be done to Government are talking about not allowing what they ensure the smooth running of this. Local authorities call “low-skilled workers”, and having a £30,000 threshold are involved as well, because we need export health for qualification. certificates from them. There is a lot of work to be done to ensure that delays are minimised to the smallest amount possible. The Chair: Order. I am advised that free movement is beyond the scope of the Bill. Brendan O’Hara: Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr Robertson; I am sure my esteemed colleague has Q180 Brendan O’Hara: I have a question for Mr Brown now reworded his question. about the importance of the shellfish industry. As the Member of Parliament for Argyll and Bute, I understand the importance of shellfish to my west of Scotland The Chair: We will come back to Mr Brown, but we constituency the. Do you think that the shellfish industry have to move over to the other side. 93 Public Bill Committee 6 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 94

Q182 David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con): Earlier, Andrew Brown: Yes, there will be challenges going you talked about how the likes of Norway, Iceland and forward. Obviously it comes back to an earlier point others have been looked on with envy in negotiations, that Mr Brown made about EU migration policy. We probably not just by us, but by other EU member states. have a lot of reliance on that—76% of our workforce In the future, as an independent coastal state, when we are EU migrants. In the longer term, we hope to see end up in those negotiations with that increased power, commitment of investment from Government into what role do you see Ministers and officials from devolved vocational training for workers, both on land and at Assemblies playing, and how well is that covered in the sea. In the short term, it is very difficult to see where we Bill? can get staff. Retention of staff is really important for Mike Park: In the discussions that we have had with us. We do what we can to make the job as attractive as both the Scottish Government and with Ministers and possible and to look after our staff, but going forward it officials at DEFRA, we have always tried to put across is an issue we have to plan for. the point that now we have a blank sheet of paper, we Daniel Whittle: In both Whitby and Kilkeel, in Northern should look at governance structures and good governance. Ireland, about 80% of the workforce are local. I personally It is essential that one of the lessons we learn from the believe that a high availability of low-skilled and low-paid CFP is that we should start to build policy from the people has perhaps made life relatively easy—not easy bottom up. That is perhaps not how we should approach but easier—when businesses compete. I think the area international negotiations, but it aligns with where the of competition may lean more towards productivity— key areas should be. output per person and kilos per hour—and be much It is essential that we build a suitable advisory structure, more focused on automation. Not everything can be perhaps within the Administrations but certainly within automated, but if there is support to help with that the UK. I think, as we move forward into what will process, and I think there is a mention of that in the become trilaterals on setting tax and bilaterals on exchanges Bill, then that could ease the situation. and balances, we should start to bind the sector in there. Mike Park: May I mention the catching sector? It is You referred to my previous comments about looking perhaps not contained within the Bill. If you want me on in envy at our Norwegian colleagues, who are part of to stop I certainly will. This is in relation to our reliability the Norwegian delegation. We would ask Ministers—or on non-EEA crew in the fishing sector and the problems the people to whom we need to apply—to ensure that for communities in the west of Scotland, where we there are knowledgeable people sitting behind the officials cannot bring in non-EEA workers because they come in and doing the negotiations. on a transit visa and are not allowed to operate inside Andrew Pillar: In my experience—I have been to 12 miles. If you look at the west of Scotland, there are several rounds of mackerel coastal states talks this very few areas where they can work where they are not year—the officials representing the Scottish Government operating inside 12 miles, which means that they are and DEFRA are very competent, well informed and, struggling for crew. quite honestly, raring to go in what I see as individuals Daniel Whittle: Just to follow up, that has a significant lined up to be taking that seat negotiating on our behalf impact on the nephrops fishery, which has historically as a UK coastal state. We are very enthusiastic about been one of the top three high-value species in UK that. fishing over the past 10 years. This year—as of last I echo the points you have already heard about making week—that quota was 51% caught. It has been sure that the industry is close to that. I have seen first fundamentally undermined by the lack of crew available hand how that has happened, with the likes of the to fish on the boats, and that goes across the west of Faroese Government listening very carefully to their Scotland and Northern Ireland. In the North sea, where industry and acting on their instructions to deliver for most of the fisheries are outside the 12 miles, the them. landings have actually increased.

Q183 David Duguid: Do you think the role of the Q185 Mr Sweeney: Are you satisfied that the grant devolved Administrations is adequately covered in the provisions in clause 28 are robust enough? Would you Bill? like to see further definition of what those opportunities Mike Park: Personally I would have liked to see some might be, if you are looking at labour substitution with tighter wording around structures, governance and capital investment to offset the cost and scarcity of inclusion. The document talks about “interested persons” labour? being asked to comment. I am not entirely sure how Daniel Whittle: It is currently very vague in the Bill, I broad that goes. I would like to be classed as more than would say. an “interested person”—not just me personally, but across the broader industry sector. The Chair: We have only 10 minutes to go and I have four questioners. Brief questions and brief answers Q184 Mr Sweeney: There has been a focus on the would be appreciated. pricing aspects of the impact of Brexit, but I am also interested in the workforce aspects, particularly in more remote communities, such as the Western Isles, where Q186 Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con): there is a big shellfish industry. If we look at the skills I ask this to everyone, with the exception of Whitby profile of the fishing industry in the UK, 67% of the Seafoods, who I think source UK and sell UK catch for workforce is in the process. What long-term impact do the other three panel members. I am sure the movement you think that will have on the skills profile and the age of fish products—catch—will be dictated by the consumers’ of the workforce, and will that present any challenges palate rather than by any Bill. I understand that there is for you? a lot caught in UK waters and shipped abroad. There is 95 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 96

[Bill Grant] when they renew some of the plans. It is difficult to see how they could impact on us, other than to ignore us. almost a reversal; we like what somebody else catches For instance, the December Council is coming up. We and somebody else likes what we catch. Is there anything are still a member state at that Council. Could they in the Bill that will impair that continued process, which ignore us during that? We normally go with a shopping is essential for the industry? Is there anything in the Bill list. As the Minister will know, England has normally that could improve that process for the future? got its requirements and Scotland has its requirements. Andrew Brown: I do not think there is anything in the Whether we are in the IP or whatever—if the IP comes— Bill. If you look at shellfish, for example, our only and whether we are ignored during those events could important market in the UK is for langoustine tails for impact on us. As yet that is an unknown, but yes, there scampi. Practically everything else goes abroad, mainly is the possibility. to the EU but to some other parts of the world as well. I think it is very difficult to change food culture.Traditionally, Q189 Owen Smith: On tariffs, the Minister was implying UK consumers have not eaten crab, scallops or dog that an 8% increase in tariffs on shellfish might not whelks to any great extent. It would take a long time to necessarily be a problem. You talked about £43 million change that, I think. Even if we could do that, we would of increased costs for the industry. Would we see more still have more product than would be consumed by a or fewer jobs in the industry if we had an extra 8% tariffs UK market. It would not be just be a case of changing on our shellfish? tastes. We would need to increase the general uptake of seafood in people’s diet as well. Even then, we would Andrew Brown: It is difficult to predict. Obviously, it still have more product than could be sold. will affect our competitiveness and it is a competitive market, so it cannot be a good thing for the industry, Andrew Pillar: In our experience of working with but different products have different premiums and can British retailers and consumer markets, there is a real absorb different levels of tariffs. It really depends what opportunity to engage people with what British-produced, stock you are talking about and what market you are good fresh fish looks like and what it tastes like. I was talking about. There is an average of an 8% to 9% tariff with the Minister in the last 12 months, eating gurnard value across all our stocks, so clearly that is not going to in a local restaurant in Plymouth. There is that opportunity, help us in terms of profitably. but we need to get the retailers and other points of the supply chain on board to recognise exactly what we have within our waters, and to think differently. When Q190 Owen Smith: Are you anticipating growth in we put that in front of consumers, in our experience your industry post Brexit? quite often we can see that they can be well-priced, Andrew Brown: Yes. I think we are, but it is reliant on competitive, very good offerings. We have to try to a number of factors and the sustainability and management market that and it is not straightforward. It takes effort. of the stocks. We are very dependent on, let us say, growth in China. Currently the situation is good, but Q187 Bill Grant: Going forward, do you see wider that market can be subject to sudden and unexpected markets beyond the European Union? Do you see regulatory change, which can close off markets just as opportunities for the products caught off UK shores quickly as they open up. There are risks associated with elsewhere in the world, other than the EU? that, and we have to build that into our business planning. Andrew Pillar: In our experience, very much so. We have experience already with exports throughout Asia Q191 Peter Aldous: There is a scenario at present in and elsewhere around the world. There is a very strong the southern North sea where a significant amount of demand, particularly for the pelagic products coming fish is caught, in particular by Dutch vessels, using from UK waters, based on the quality that we have particularly unsustainable practices such as electric pulse available. fishing, and it is processed in the Netherlands and then Andrew Brown: From our perspective, we have growing imported back into the UK. That presents three challenges: markets in Asia and north America, but they are not of allowing UK fishermen to catch more of the fish in our the scale that would be able to replace what we currently waters; promoting sustainable fishing so electric pulse export to Europe. fishing just cannot take place in the way it has; and Daniel Whittle: We have seen evidence of something promoting our own processing sector. Does the Bill similar of late, with brown crabs. There has been a help us achieve those three goals? significant increase in the price of brown crabs as a Andrew Pillar: We have expertise in the demersal consequence of exports of live brown crab to China, sector but also in demersal processing. This is a stepping which is driving up the price. stone in that direction. There is clearly other work that will need to be done, but it is part of the enabling Q188 Owen Smith: Generally, you have obviously set framework. It is clear from the work that was done in a lot of store by the prospect of us being at the top terms of the consultation and the White Paper behind table, as it were, when we are a so-called independent the Bill, and from my engagement with the team who coastal state. Are you worried that during transition we went out on the road and did the fact finding, that a are going to be even further away from the top table tremendous amount of work went into producing the than we are presently? Bill. We recognise that, and we recognise that it is not all Mike Park: There is some concern that Europe could going to be there on day one. This is part of the introduce some rules or plans that impact on us more framework. If we successfully implement the Bill and its than on other member states. There is that concern. spirit, we will set out a framework for sustainable How real those concerns are, I am not entirely sure. production—for harvesting fish, for having access to Pelagic is the area that should probably be most concerned, markets and for domestic processing—and for enabling 97 Public Bill Committee 6 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 98 those people who are employed indirectly and have no The Chair: We have less than two minutes, but I call direct association with fishing opportunities or quotas Marcus Jones. to find employment. Mike Park: I guess the good thing is that the Bill does Q193 Mr Jones: The standards of foreign and UK not do anything horribly wrong. That is the main thing vessels have been mentioned. Mr Whittle, you mentioned for me. electronic monitoring equipment. I did not quite catch— pardon the pun—what you said, so would you elaborate on that? In that context, Mr Brown, will you say a little Q192 Peter Aldous: Should we have Bills that do not about licensing if we have time? do anything horribly wrong or Bills that promote the best possible practices? Daniel Whittle: I said if you were serious about implementing the landing obligation and seeing it as a Mike Park: It allows fisheries to develop in a positive source of data, which I believe it is, you should have way. It does nothing to restrict that, and it does nothing remote electronic monitoring of UK vessels and make overly to promote it. If you overly promote something that a necessary criterion for fishing in UK waters, and it is wrong, the chances are that is not a good thing. which would mean that any foreign boat wishing to fish It does nothing horribly wrong. It should allow fisheries in UK waters would need it, too. We feel it particularly to progress into this highly sustainable and sought after acutely because we buy the smaller end of our species, product. As an industry we are very aware of the and there tends to be high grading within the Irish fleet, marketplace and of regulation. For us, that is essential, which frustrates us. because as we leave Europe and the spotlight comes on us in terms of sustainability, we will have to do things Andrew Pillar: Can I very quickly interject? We have better than anyone else if we want to increase our experience of doing trial work for the REM equipment market share. That is where our awareness is currently with DEFRA on the demersal fleet in the south-west, focused, and the Bill does nothing to stop that. and— Andrew Brown: I agree with that. It is a framework Bill. The proof will be in the pudding—in the policies The Chair: Order. I am terribly sorry, but my hands that emerge from this framework. The principles of are tied; I have to end the session at 1 o’clock, which it sustainability and scientific basis, which we support, now is. I apologise to Mr Brown that I was not able to should stand us in good stead. bring him back in. Witnesses, thank you very much for joining us today. It has been very useful. Daniel Whittle: I echo that. There are a lot of excellent policies in the Bill. I particularly support the focus on 1 pm the devolution of licensing and so on. The challenges in Scotland and England are different from those in Wales The Chair adjourned the Committee without Question and Northern Ireland. Allowing devolved Governments put (Standing Order No. 88). to control effort is a big step forward. Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT GENERAL COMMITTEES

Public Bill Committee

FISHERIES BILL

Fourth Sitting

Thursday 6 December 2018

(Afternoon)

CONTENTS Examination of witnesses. The Committee adjourned till Tuesday 11 December at twenty-five minutes past Nine o’clock. Written evidence reported to the House.

PBC (Bill 278) 2017 - 2019 No proofs can be supplied. Corrections that Members suggest for the final version of the report should be clearly marked in a copy of the report—not telephoned—and must be received in the Editor’s Room, House of Commons,

not later than

Monday 10 December 2018

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2018 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. 99 Public Bill Committee 6 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 100

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: JAMES GRAY,†DAVID HANSON,MR LAURENCE ROBERTSON,SIR DAVID CRAUSBY

† Aldous, Peter (Waveney) (Con) † O’Hara, Brendan (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) † Brown, Alan (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP) Pennycook, Matthew (Greenwich and Woolwich) Carmichael, Mr Alistair (Orkney and Shetland) (LD) (Lab) † Debbonaire, Thangam (Bristol West) (Lab) † Pollard, Luke (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) † Duguid, David (Banff and Buchan) (Con) (Lab/Co-op) † Eustice, George (Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries † Smith, Owen (Pontypridd) (Lab) and Food) † Stewart, Iain (Milton Keynes South) (Con) † Sweeney, Mr Paul (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co- † Grant, Bill (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con) op) † Hill, Mike (Hartlepool) (Lab) † Tracey, Craig (North Warwickshire) (Con) Hollinrake, Kevin (Thirsk and Malton) (Con) † Jones, Mr Marcus (Nuneaton) (Con) Gail Poulton, Lis Gerhold, Committee Clerks † Lefroy, Jeremy (Stafford) (Con) † Morris, James (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con) † attended the Committee

Witnesses

Griffin Carpenter, Senior Researcher, New Economics Foundation

Dr Carl O’Brien CBE, DEFRA Chief Fisheries Science Adviser, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Dr Amy Pryor, Programme Manager at the Thames Estuary Partnership and the Chair of the Coastal Partnerships Network, Coastal Communities Alliance

Elaine Whyte, Communities Inshore Fisheries Alliance 101 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 102

“Rather than just transposing article 17, let’s put in Public Bill Committee actual criteria such as contribution to local economies or low environmental impact”, but that is not in there Thursday 6 December 2018 right now.

(Afternoon) Q196 George Eustice: A lot of this comes down to the difference between a White Paper, which explains the [DAVID HANSON in the Chair] Government’s policy on something and what they intend to achieve with a Bill, and the Bill itself, which is simply Fisheries Bill the legal powers required to carry out the White Paper. There is a clause in the Bill that gives us the power to 2 pm have a super-levy on over-quota fish or, indeed, to have The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food a tender regime for different quota. Does that not give (George Eustice): I beg to move, all the powers we need? What powers are missing? That the order of the Committee of 4 December be varied, by Griffin Carpenter: The powers are there. I understand leaving out “and 5.00pm” in paragraph (1)(c). that the Fisheries Bill is enabling legislation and this This amendment has been agreed by the Whips. Committee has had to struggle with asking questions about an enabling piece of legislation. I have a couple of Question put and agreed to. comments. If we want to do something about existing quota—not just the idea of quota that is gained—we Examination of witness need to do something in the Fisheries Bill itself. For Griffin Carpenter gave evidence. example, you have heard other witnesses say, “With extra quota we can solve all problems—any issues around 2.1 pm new entrants, the small scale sector and so on—as long Q194 The Chair: I invite the witness to introduce as the existing quota is protected.” Of course, that is himself and his organisation. their interest—they are the quota holders. But we have been working with people who do not hold the quota Griffin Carpenter: My name is Griffin Carpenter and and they are interested in breaking the lock around I am a researcher at the New Economics Foundation. existing FQAs. My work on fisheries policy takes a mixed-method approach; for example, last year I produced an economic In essence, fisheries have been accidentally privatised. impact assessment of Brexit scenarios across the UK Every year, quota is allocated to the same holders, and fishing fleet—large and small quota holders and non- there is a legitimate expectation that that continues in holders—and followed up the work this year by going future. The Department for Environment, Food and to four case study ports and interviewing fishers about Rural Affairs and other organisations are too scared to what future fisheries legislation could deliver for them. break that hold on the quota and say, “This year we will allocate quota differently.” It has not been done; it is Q195 George Eustice: You will be aware that our basically privatised now the claim is so strong. If there White Paper on the Bill set out our intention to start to is ever a point to break that link, it is now. depart from fixed quota allocation units as the basis of We are redoing our fisheries legislation, so at the quota allocation, to create the possibility of tendering same time as allocating fishing opportunities, I would quotatoproducerorganisationsbasedontheirsustainability put something like a seven-year notice period. In seven track record, what they give back to local communities years, all quota goes back to the Government and we and what they offer new entrants, and to use quota to can decide who gets to fish 100% of our quota, rather help with the discard ban and possibly to put more into than just the idea that some quota will be gained. That the under-10 pool. Do you broadly support that direction is great if it happens, but we do not know for which of travel? species or whether that is the species required for the Griffin Carpenter: Yes, I was pleased to see what was landing obligation or the small-scale fleet. in the White Paper. We have been calling for some of those things for years. As the method of doing that we Q197 George Eustice: Do you accept that a lot of proposed something like a quota reserve, where the business models have been based on buying vessels with Government set aside some quota and some is allocated the quota attached and, therefore, there is a legitimate based on historical track record and some is set aside expectation, having paid money to get the vessel with its saying that we have multiple objectives for fisheries entitlement to some kind of property right, even though management—new entrants and the landing obligation, it is not an indefinite one? as you say—so this quota can be served for different Griffin Carpenter: Exactly. When those purchases are purposes. I think of it a bit like agricultural subsidies made, it is not known how strong that property right is. where, over time, some continue to be based on production There is an issue with banks not understanding if they or land area, but some are set aside saying that we have can give a loan to a fishing vessel because they hold a many objectives in this sector. The Government need to quota: how long is that good for? If the stocks go up retain some quota to do that. and down, what earnings will they have 10 years from The problem is that that is not followed up in the now? The point of the notice period is to get around Bill, which just transposes article 17, which, as written, that. To give a couple of examples people can look into, is not being implemented by member states. That is the Faroe Islands recently renationalised all their fishing the problem with article 17. I was a bit disappointed opportunities, and Denmark has a notice period and to see the Bill not go through with what was in the has extended it recently. It reallocated some quota from White Paper. I think it could be more specific and say, large to small and, as something of a compromise, 103 Public Bill Committee 6 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 104 extended the length of the notice period, to say, “Okay, much pressure on shellfish, what will these guys do? we reallocated from large to small, but we won’t touch They need some quota to release the pressure on shellfish this again for 14 years—that’s your notice period.” stocks such as crab or scallops, so they have another seasonable fishery. Q198 George Eustice: Do you not think that might change from species to species? It might not be a Q200 Luke Pollard: Having the Bill list fish as a straightforward seven-year period if you were to do public good has been mooted by some stakeholders as things fairly. one way definitively to say that fish is a public good and Griffin Carpenter: Are you saying what will not be should be allocated for the benefit of the country. From fair by species? your research, is that something that would make a difference? George Eustice: Yes. A seven-year period might not Griffin Carpenter: Absolutely. When I have spoken to be fair for everyone because some might have paid more stakeholders, even the quota holders, everyone starts for different types of entitlement. from the same premise that fish is a public good, but from my perspective that has not been followed through Griffin Carpenter: No. If we are dealing with this as a in the way we treat the opportunity to fish that public public resource, the claim is the same no matter which good. It is only in a couple of hands. You and I cannot fish species it is. The idea is that it is a public resource. go fishing; we do not have fishing licences and we We are happy for some members of society to have that certainly do not have quota, so that opportunity is right to fish, and not others, but we still reserve the right limited. How do we think about that, as the public? I to change that in future. That is true whether it is think we do so through having conditions attached to mackerel, herring, cod or haddock. those licences: “If you’re going to fish, then X, Y and Z.” I know that you are interested in the economic link Q199 Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) as an issue, but allocating quotas and the distribution of (Lab/Co-op): The NEF study of small fishers around that matters as well. the UK was interesting in highlighting the views of the under-10 fleets in particular. If there is an opportunity, Q201 Luke Pollard: You have the allocation of quota— as the Minister outlined, to reallocate future quota or, who has the ability to fish—but the economic link is an subject to amendments being accepted, reallocate existing important additional, complementary policy.I am especially quota, what do you think the opportunity is for small concerned about those small communities around our fishers in particular and coastal communities from any coast for which fishing has historically been a very type of reallocation from our EU friends to those strong industry, but that strength has reduced over the communities, or from big boats to small boats? course of our involvement in the CFP. Would requiring Griffin Carpenter: There are two different types of a national obligation to land at least 50% of your catch potential reallocation: one from European fishers to in any one quarter, but allocated on a species-by-species UK fishers, including the small scale, and the question basis, make a difference? Where would the difference be whether we change those distributions in the UK share. most felt, in your opinion? Would it be in small communities The principle is the same: can the small scale benefit or larger ones? How would it be distributed? from having additional fishing opportunities, however Griffin Carpenter: I guess the first point to make is those come? Our research has shown that there is a that every trend or practice we see in the industry is desire for fishers. there for a reason. I am sure you are aware of that, but There is some confusion because small-scale boats we need to think, “Why are the landings not taking often target shellfish. They are not fishing a lot of quota place in the UK right now?” The first reason is probably right now; they are catching crab, lobster, cuttlefish and the price effect. If you can get a higher price elsewhere, anything they can get their hands on. Nephrops are you land it elsewhere. If we are going to change some of subject to quota. People say, “They don’t have quota so the incentives, or have a conditional policy such as the they don’t need quota,” but if you speak to them, they economic link, be aware that basically we are accepting say, “If we had it, we would love to use it,” because a lot a trade-off: fishers might not be as profitable in the of small-scale fisheries are mixed—they will do something catching sector because they are getting lower prices on for one season and then switch to quota species if they first sale in the UK, but we may well make up for that have it. later in the value chain. Just be aware that that is the There is also a problem with new entrants, which trade-off you are accepting. overlaps a bit. You heard earlier that, traditionally, the The idea of an economic link as a principle that the route into fisheries for young people—fewer are entering public resource should be landed in the UK is a valid at the moment—is through shellfish, because it is so economic one. I would go about designing the policy a hard to get your hands on quota. You might be able to bit differently. The economic link is very rigid; you are buy a fishing licence, but buying a quota is too much. either above the line or below it, whether that is 50% of Having some quota set aside for small scale, and the your landings or 60% or 70%. If you are already landing overlap of small scale and new entrants—young fishers—is 90% of your catches in the UK, this policy does not a huge opportunity. really address you at all. There is a sustainability point, too. There is increasing I would rather have a marginal incentive. For example, pressure on shellfish stocks and we do not have good funding for fisheries management is not really talked stock assessments on those. Some of the warning lights about in the Fisheries Bill, although it is in the White are coming up now: we are getting lower catch per unit Paper. That is fine, but let us think about it this way: if effort, which means that where you do not have stock we are going to have a landings levy—in the same way assessment, that is the warning light. If there is too that you might have a levy on stumpage fees in forestry—on 105 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 106 aggregate extraction or on other resource industries, thinking about this issue. We are guaranteeing it is in and if we are going to have the fishing sector pay for the fisheries legislation, first and foremost.” From a management, why not differentiate so that 1% of your political perspective, that is valid. landed value in the UK goes to resource management, but if you land abroad it is 3%? The idea is that there is David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con): On the a marginal incentive for every trip you make, rather redistribution of quota, obviously, if you are a larger than a threshold that, as far as I can see, would not owner of quota versus a smaller owner of quota, or an affect most of the fishers who already land in the UK. owner of no quota, you will certainly feel that you are going to be worse off in this situation. How do you Q202 Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con): Griffin, you cater for the fact that a lot of the smaller vessel owners have talked in quite a lot of detail about the reallocation perhaps previously owned quota that they sold, benefiting of quota. From my perspective, representing a community greatly financially, and then moved into smaller vessels that is a have-not, shall we say, that is music to my ears, for which they did not need quota? How would you but I am wary of the legal implications of that. I agree avoid that kind of gaming happening again in the that fishing is a public right, but as we have heard in our future? evidence sessions, by ill fortune or bad management, it Griffin Carpenter: That is a good question. The line has acquired certain proprietorial rights. How far, legally, that has always been used on quota allocation in the do you think we are able to go? The important thing is past was, “You’re robbing Peter to pay Paul, and we that this Fisheries Bill must be determined and made by don’t want that in the industry.” Now we have the idea this House, not by lawyers. of a Brexit dividend of extra quota, we are robbing Pierre to pay Paul, so that is fine. We are fine as long as Griffin Carpenter: Absolutely. I am not a lawyer—I Peter is protected. am an economist—but the legal advice I have heard is that the use of a notice period goes a long way. I The idea of quota shares is actually a bit confusing mentioned the international examples. We have to make because they are percentages rather than tonnage. Now some claim on FQAs as a public resource. Where you that stocks are recovering, and the quota increases each might get buy-in for this across the whole sector,including year, you can have a situation, even if you are taking the large-scale fleet, is on something such as flagged from Peter and giving to Paul, where everybody is better vessels. When you hear about Spanish vessels in UK off. You can have this as a conditional reallocation. Let waters, they are almost never Spanish vessels in the us say you get a certain share in the large-scale fleet—you sense that they have a Spanish flag and are fishing the have a large-scale vessel—and you are guaranteed Spanish quota; they have purchased UK fishing vessels 1,000 tonnes every year. If the quota is going up, some and are fishing with UK quota, and a lot of coastal of the surplus quota of that year can be reallocated to communities do not like that. For example, in Wales, the small-scale fleet in a pool or through whatever most of the quota is caught by those vessels and either system you do that. There is a bit of a difference landed in Ireland or taken straight to Spain. between tonnage, which is what actually affects your bottom line, and the percentage. I suggest that we can The problem is that, if you want to address this issue have these thresholds in place. of flagged vessels—those who are foreign nationals but The other thing is that, with additional fishing have UK quota—you must do so by saying, “FQAs are opportunities potentially coming in, hopefully, we can a public resource and we are going to take that away do a reallocation all at once so, again, the large-scale from you and then revisit the issue of distribution.” In a fleet will not necessarily be worse off. They might have a political sense, you can get buy-in for that idea. In a smaller percentage of haddock, let us say, or some legal sense, I get that the notice period goes a long way. demersal stock that the small-scale fleet really wants, We heard the point made this morning that, because but they are getting all the extra herring and other this is new legislation, some of the case law around the species from the North sea from our EU colleagues. previous FQA distribution under the common fisheries There is the potential for doing all this at once: policy might not apply. I am actually not sure about that. revisiting the allocation system and making everyone better off. Q203 Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP): Sticking to the quota theme, you have already touched Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab): That was an interesting on the debate between this being enabling legislation answer to the question I was going to ask. I was going and how much detail needs to be in the Bill. Do you to ask you to clarify the position that the only way to think there needs to be more on how the quota allocation redistribute quota fairly, if I heard you right, is to break will work in future? You also mentioned potential quota the hold of the larger fishers and bring fisheries back reserves for new entrants—small-scale recreational anglers into public ownership. You suggested something like a have also been mentioned—so is it your view that there seven-year notice on that, but what you were just talking should be more in the Bill? was a potential incremental progression towards that Griffin Carpenter: I think that is a political question. through redistribution of surplus tonnage. Were you I understand the idea that it is enabling legislation and right in the first instance that fisheries have to be that for most fisheries legislation all the detail will come brought back into public ownership for fairer redistribution, in secondary legislation, but if you have some priorities but have you also realised that there can be incremental that you absolutely want to ensure are in future UK changes to benefit new starters or the under-10s as we fisheries, here is an opportunity to introduce them. I proceed? understand that some of the ideas we are discussing Griffin Carpenter: That is a good question. Unfortunately, might be incongruous with the tone, at least, of the rest it is an awkward one with Brexit timing, because we are of the Bill, but here is an opportunity where we can say, not sure if or when the additional quota will come “Starting now, we are only in 2018 and we are already online. One of the issues about not dealing with the 107 Public Bill Committee 6 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 108 fixed quota allocations is that right now it really does Those bodies should be empowered to have jurisdiction not matter to a small-scale fisher if there is a theoretical up to 12 miles and control the number of pots, and extra quota that may or may not come. The more so on. important point is that, given the timeline right now, it will probably need to be incremental, where first we will Q206 Peter Aldous: The right hon. Member for Newbury deal with the additional quota, then we deal with the (Richard Benyon), when he was Fisheries Minister, existing FQAs. But that requires in the fisheries legislation fought very hard in the 2015 review of the CFP, and the at the first available opportunity to give notice, because general consensus was that it was a good deal. One of every year you delay is another year that you cannot do the main things won was article 17, so you worry me by the reallocation that we propose. The Fisheries Bill is basically saying that no one takes any notice of it. In the right place to do that. transposing article 17 to the Bill, what can we do to give it teeth, so that people take notice of it and it is implemented? Q204 Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con): On the same theme, I have come across the theory of Griffin Carpenter: Exactly. This refers back to the using days at sea. What are your thoughts on days at sea first discussion we had. We as an organisation were one in relation to quotas? It is admirable that you suggest of the groups advocating for article 17 in the CFP. The giving that time period of 14 years to reduce the larger CFP—people might disagree with this—actually gives quotas, to give a better share for the smaller vessels and quite a lot of power to member states, for better or under-10s. While the capacity for the last vessels is worse. The EU did not want to say exactly how each there, how do you see us increasing the capacity of the member state should allocate its fishing opportunities. smaller vessels over that period of time, and attracting It just says, “Tell us how you are doing it. Be transparent new people into the industry to absorb the redistribution and objective about how you are doing it. Is it based on of quotas? historical catch records? Are you giving more to the small-scale fleet?”and so on. Every member state continued Griffin Carpenter: There is lots going on there. allocating quota as they were. The UK has done some things with unused quota, but never actually referred The Chair: You will have to be relatively quick because back to article 17. It was just that the small scale wanted we are running short of time. more, so they gave some more. Griffin Carpenter: I will be as brief as possible. There The problem with transposing that is that it seems is a number of reasons why young people are not like we are missing an opportunity to be specific. Article 17 getting into fishing. Let us just stick with one of the was vague so that each member state could use their most obvious: it is expensive to get in and get that own criteria. Now we are transposing that, but we are quota. The UK could have a system, through the quota the member state—we are one entity—so we can say reserve, where it is allocated for free on a loan. Denmark exactly, especially in the case of England, how we are does that—it is called a fish fund—and you can get going to do it, and we can say that right now. It seems more detail there. strange to transpose something that was intentionally vague so each member state could be specific. The Chair: Exceptionally quick. Thank you. Q207 Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab): As a Welshman, I am obviously worried about the prospect of robbing Q205 Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP): Dai to pay Pedro. On the issue of flagged vessels that Your report, “A Fair and Sustainable Fisheries Bill” you mentioned, is there anything in the Bill that would made a number of recommendations. How much of stop the Welsh from addressing that issue? that has been translated into what we have in front of Griffin Carpenter: Nothing that stops the Welsh from us? Do you think that the Fisheries Bill represents addressing the issue, but nothing that addresses the radical change or preservation of the status quo? Is it a issue per se. Again, devolution is extremely awkward in missed opportunity? fisheries, where we have a Bill that empowers the fisheries Griffin Carpenter: It has been discussed many times Administrations and stops there. It would be up to the that it is an enabling piece of legislation. Many of our Welsh Government to do something, presumably in policy ideas are not in there, for the reasons just discussed. their licensing. In my opinion it is a political choice whether you get overly detailed in one area. That is a trade-off, depending The Chair: We have just over three minutes, if there on what you want to prioritise now and your trust that are any further questions. it will come in secondary legislation. We were calling for redistribution of quota. Something Q208 George Eustice: The Bill envisages a joint fisheries I think is missing from the Bill, which was discussed statement, but also something called a Secretary of earlier,is commitments to maximum sustainable yield—not State’s statement, which would include a whole plan for just the stock commitment but the flow, so how much the English fleet about how it contributes to coastal you are taking out. Many of us were surprised that was communities and supports livelihoods. In what way not in the Bill. We would like more focus on inshore does that fall short of what you are seeking? It is a clear fisheries management; those are shellfish stocks that are commitment for a plan that will outline how we allocate left out of the discussion on quota. fishing opportunities to help those objectives. Also, there is a lack of trust in the fishing industry. Griffin Carpenter: It is a commitment for a plan, but I The way you build trust is through repeated social am saying we should think about that plan right now interaction. The only realistic way to do that is to have and what should be in it, rather than leave it to each inshore bodies, where all the stakeholders meet together Government to decide. We have seen that, through to discuss issues in the inshore waters within 12 miles. article 17, it has always been in UK jurisdiction to 109 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 110 decide how to allocate quotas. That is not a power that Q211 George Eustice: Carl and I have worked together the EU had that we are taking back; it was always up to on many late nights at December Council. us and we have not taken that opportunity. Now is the The Committee is hearing a lot about MSY and the right time to have that conversation, and the Bill is a use of it as a guide to fisheries management, but I piece of legislation that we can put that in. wondered whether you might be able to explain to It is roughly the same with the discussion about everyone, first of all, the types of raw data that CEFAS MSYs. Yes, in the fisheries statement, they can say how collects through things such as a survey vessel, Endeavour, we are doing—how the stocks are doing in reference to the work done on fishing vessels and on landings to those MSY values—but we should have that as a duty. gather the raw data, and, secondly, how that data is Be specific in the Bill and say, “You cannot fish above used—as close to layman’s terms as you can—to create MSY.”We are going be post 2020, so you might as well the MSY position for a given stock. just say, “We will be fishing in line with MSY.” We are Dr Carl O’Brien: Before the common fisheries policy past the deadline. was agreed, most fisheries management went through the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission. The Q209 Alan Brown: A few witnesses have commented data that was used by the NEAFC and that is used by that they do not think there is enough information or the Commission comes from ICES. At the moment, transparency regarding the discards prevention scheme ICES is made up of 19 member countries that are not that is in the Bill and how it will actually work in future. just from Europe; it also includes Iceland, the Faroes, Do you have any views on that? Greenland, Norway, America and Canada. Griffin Carpenter: It is an interesting question. From Each country records landings data, which is done my reading of it, it seems to take from the Norway for us through the Marine Management Organisation. model, which is that some discards are landed but there It records effort data, which is the so-called fishery- is a fee attached to that. Instead of the landing obligation, dependent data. We also have fishery-independent data: we will say, “The quota is set at this level. You cannot in our case, we have the research vessel Endeavour, fish above that, otherwise you get choke problems.” It is which goes to sea and surveys around our waters for more of an economic incentive, rather than a hard line. distributions of individual species. We record the type That needs to be compensated for with lower quota, of species and their size. We take the little earstones, because we are saying that there is going to be some otoliths, out of their ears and age them in a way that is fishing above that line, but we will have an economic similar to ageing trees—if you slice through the otoliths, incentive so you do not land as much. I think the you can count growth rings. principle is a fair one—switching incentives—but that We have length measurements of fish, we have age should be compensated for in our expectations about readings, we have species composition, and we have how much above that quota we are actually going to species distribution. All that information is given to fish. ICES. In the case of the UK, because we have devolved Administrations, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Q210 The Chair: We are into the last 45 seconds or so England—England does some of the sampling for Wales— of the session. Is there is anything you wish to say that combine their data together and it goes in as the UK has not been said so far, Mr Carpenter? data. Countries within Europe, such as Germany and Griffin Carpenter: One quick point, if I may. We have France, do something very similar. spoken a lot about quota, but non-quota species are The landings data and the biological data are all put very important. More work should be done on stock together and we carry out formal assessment models. assessments. That is something that could be in the Bill These can be data-intensive and very complicated to say, “We are not going to be fishing stocks anymore if mathematical models, or they can be more simplistic we have no idea how much we can be fishing.” models, using life history characteristics—things based on growth rates and size of individuals. The Chair: Thank you for your evidence to the Committee. Essentially, the assessments are international. It is not the UK assessing our fish stocks in our waters; it is done internationally, there is international agreement Examination of Witness and it is not just within the EU but outside the EU, Dr Carl O’Brien gave evidence. as well.

2.30 pm The Chair: Welcome, Dr O’Brien. Could you please Q212 George Eustice: When we talk about data-limited introduce yourself and your role to the members of the stocks,what typically is lacking for a stock to be data-limited Committee? rather than one with a full dataset on which you can Dr Carl O’Brien: My name is Carl O’Brien. I am the judge MSY? chief fisheries science adviser for the Department for Dr Carl O’Brien: Before I joined fisheries in the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I am also the mid-90s, virtual population analysis was used, which is UK delegate to the International Council for the an age structure-based model. You actually use age Exploration of the Sea and I am now one of its life data. As long as you can age fish, you can model the presidents. Also, I am from the Centre for Environment, development of fish as they grow, the same as you Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, which is one of would with human populations—one-year-olds become DEFRA’s Executive agencies. I attend Fisheries Council two-year-olds, who then become three-year-olds. You meetings with our Minister, and I have attended with can take into account natural mortality through natural previous Ministers, to negotiate quotas. deaths and also exploitation rates—death through fishing. 111 Public Bill Committee 6 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 112

The typical data-rich models are those that have the could give you quite high Fs. ICES is being quite age-based data. The data-limited ones are those where, constrained in the way in which it is trying to manage for various reasons, we either cannot age the fish or it is the mixed fisheries and the choke issues. The reason for too expensive to age the fish, so we have simpler methods, the range is that it allows you to try to deal with some such as the size of the fish or maturity ogives, which are of the mismatches between the availability of fish on simpler types of metrics. However, we can still come up the ground and the fact that the gear may not be as with so-called proxies. Back in 2015, within ICES, I was selective as it needs to be. developing methods with our Portuguese and French colleagues to come up with MSY proxies, which, as the Minister knows, the Commission will now accept as Q215 George Eustice: Finally, Norway uses MSY,but MSY values. They are not treated as second-class MSY also uses a number of other measures. It is sometimes values. They are appropriate for the data-limited stocks. argued that following MSY on its own gives you too much volatility and year-to-year change in stock management. Is there anything that we can learn from Q213 George Eustice: Could you explain briefly the the Norwegians’ approach? Do they have a point in difference between the biomass MSY and fisheries MSY, terms of having a slightly more holistic approach to and why FSMY is deemed the right measure to use for sustainable fishing? fisheries management? Dr Carl O’Brien: Norway, like Iceland, although it Dr Carl O’Brien: Partly because it is a question of wants to follow the general principle of maximum input and output. To a certain extent you can control sustainable yield, is not wedded to it to the exclusion of fisheries exploitation—the harvest rate. You can control other principles. There may be reasons why one year how many boats go to sea and, by implication, how you might choose to exploit at a slightly higher rate many fish are taken out of the sea. The biomass is a than MSY, rather than at or below MSY. consequence of your management being appropriate or The Norwegians also have the idea of so-called “balanced right for the sea and for the species. If you get the harvesting”. Rather than trying to decide how much balance between exploitation or harvest rate correct, cod, haddock or whiting you want, you decide, based your biomass should continue to grow. One is input; on the trophic level of where species live, how much you one is output. could take out of that part of the system for it to remain balanced. That includes not only the fish species that we Q214 George Eustice: Would you explain where, from look at, but seals, seabirds, whales and other parts of a scientific point of view, using MSY throws up practical the ecosystem. problems—for instance, with mixed fisheries or where We can learn from Norway that if you focus just on there are choke species—and what we might do to fish themselves and the fisheries, you will lose a part of overcome some of those problems? the ecosystem around seabirds, cetaceans and whales. Dr Carl O’Brien: Do you want to know the history of That is something that we need to incorporate into our MSY before I answer that, or can I take it that you models. The Government’s 25-year environment plan know it? mentions an ecosystem approach to fisheries management, which I interpret as, starting with the mixed fisheries George Eustice: You gave us a bit of the history. My models, asking how you expand those to take into question is more about where it poses practical problems, account other aspects of the ecosystem. on mixed fisheries and choke species. Dr Carl O’Brien: The problem is that the stocks in Q216 Luke Pollard: One of the concerns that many European waters, Icelandic waters and Faroese waters, stakeholders have raised with us is about data deficiency, and in the Barents sea for Norway, are assessed on a especially on non-quota species. How would you single-species basis. The reference points that we have in recommend that the UK Government and the devolved terms of biological reference points and harvest rates Administrations address that data deficiency, especially are determined on a single-species basis. Unfortunately, among species where there might be concerns but not a when you put your fishing net in the water, you cannot huge amount of evidence gathered to date? catch just cod or haddock, or if you try to fish for plaice Dr Carl O’Brien: I think you would be surprised how you cannot catch just plaice; you end up with sole and much evidence has been gathered for non-quota species. other species, so you have the so-called mixed fishery Seafish had a project called Project Inshore, which I problem. think is now in its second phase, looking mainly at The reference points themselves would be fine in an shellfish species. Quite a lot of data has been collected ideal world where you could fish for just those species. from around the ports by Project Inshore, with the The mixed fishery issue is that you cannot simultaneously support of the fishermen and the IFCAs. There is a lot achieve all those single-species FMSY values.The approach of information from that project. that scientists have come up with is basically to ask, The Department for Environment, Food and Rural “Can you find a range around MSY?” The UK was Affairs is committed to progressing its assessments of very instrumental in this, and the Minister took our species like scallops, whelks and crabs. There is a paper to Council in, I think, 2013—the first time we commitment from the Minister’s Department to actually tried it with the Commission. improve data collection and the assessment of those The idea was to look at ranges. Can you find a range species. I think things are all going in the right direction. of fishing mortalities that are consistent with high At CEFAS, we started this work back in 2010 with long-term yield? The value that ICES took was 95% of ICES, recognising that not having assessments of non- the maximum. Some academics, such as Ray Hilborn, commercial species or data-limited stocks was a drawback take 80%, which ICES thought was going too far—that to fisheries management. 113 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 114

The Minister answered a Parliamentary question in Q220 Bill Grant: Moving slightly off the Bill—I am January, when we came back from December Council, sure the Chair will forgive me as it is connected to the which quoted 31 stocks out of 45 being exploited at environment—we see birds gathering to migrate across MSY. We do not exploit just 45 stocks as a nation—we the globe, but we do not see the same movement of fish exploit in excess of 150. A lot of those are data-limited under the water. What sort of distance do the fish travel and they may be small tonnages, but they are very as they migrate from place to place? Environmentally, important species for local fishermen, certainly down we have believe that the temperature of the water is in the south-west. I think we are improving the going to increase, so could that increase in temperature quality of the data we have available. It is not just for alter where the shoals of fish go? Is that going to affect scientists; it is for the fishing industry and for the likes the fishery? of Seafish. Dr Carl O’Brien: The answer to the first part is that it is very species dependent. Species like North sea cod Q217 Luke Pollard: As another west country MP, I will live in the North sea, the eastern channel and the agree that we need more data to support the mixed Skagerrak. They mix quite happily.Species like mackerel, fisheries that we have. What is the progress that needs to blue whiting and Atlanto-Scandian herring travel over be made to get to fully documented fisheries? One of very large distances. Species like eels essentially travel the difficulties that some of our stakeholders have been around the globe, starting in the Sargasso sea. We have flagging up is that some of our fisheries cannot be a lot of data that has been funded by DEFRA, and the classed as sustainable simply because there is not enough Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in its previous data to prove that they are or not. What do we need to role, from tagging things like bluefin tuna. We have a lot do to get to fully documented fisheries? of data on migration, so we know roughly where fish Dr Carl O’Brien: I think it depends on the size of the are moving. vessel. Large offshore vessels already keep logbooks. A The issue of climate change has two aspects. One is lot of the English fleet has cameras on board, so that is that, as waters warm, you may see a movement of fish. helping the documentation. I am aware of projects We have seen northern hake move from the southern down in the south-west, such as Fishface, where they waters more northerly into the North sea, which is are trying to use cameras on under-10 metre vessels, causing some of our fishermen a problem at the moment, with quite a lot of success. It is making the best use of with choke issues. The other aspect is that you may the technology that is available. A few years ago, with suddenly find species that you have never seen before. DEFRA funding, CEFAS developed apps for mobile We are getting reports of cuttlefish, squid and even phones so skippers could go out on smaller vessels and jellyfish down in the channel. We are aware, through their positions were known through the apps. They questioning the public, that there is an Asian market for could also fill in electronic log sheets, certainly for jellyfish, so perhaps some time in the future there will be shellfish species, and record how many pots were put in a market for UK jellyfish. Who knows? We are looking the water and what quantity of shellfish was being lifted at that as part of this process; we are not focused just on from the sea. this year’s or next year’ fishing quotas. It is very much about where we might be in 50 or 100 years’ time. Q218 Luke Pollard: That is good. The UK has some of the best fishery science in the entire world, if not the Q221 Brendan O’Hara: I have a question about the best. discard prevention scheme: we have heard over the last Dr Carl O’Brien: I agree. couple of days from representatives from the fishing fleet itself, who think the system will not work, and Q219 Luke Pollard: That brings me to an allied from environmental groups, which think there is not question that goes along with access to waters. If we are enough information on how it will operate. Could you requiring British fishing boats to have this high level of tell us how the scheme will be implemented? Given that reporting—entirely appropriately—do we have the same both the environmental lobby and the fishing fleet have level of data coming from foreign boats accessing UK concerns, do you think we should put something in the waters? Bill to make it absolutely clear how it will work? Dr Carl O’Brien: The answer is that it is variable, Dr Carl O’Brien: I am a scientist, not a politician or a depending on the country. The Danes are quite well Minister, so I do not know how it will work. The advanced and are similar to us, in that they have thinking behind it is that, as we move towards fully cameras on board their vessels. If your question is implementing the landing obligation next year, there about vessels that might have access to our waters in will be some serious issues with choke species, as the the future, then I think whatever measures we use or Minister mentioned. My understanding of the discard apply to our own fishermen should be applied to prevention charging scheme is that you have two options: other vessels coming into our waters. If we require you either have such a scheme or you tie vessels up. As cameras then that should be a requirement for a soon as you have fished your quota, you can no longer French or German vessel to come into UK waters. It go to sea because you will not have the ability to has to be a level playing field. It is not necessarily just discard, which means you will not have the ability to to focusing on making life fair. What you do not land quota. want to end up with is very accurate data from our fleet, The discard prevention scheme is a way of saying to and very bad data from everybody else, because you fishermen, “If you have good ideas for selectivity measures know what the consequence of that is. You end up or ways of mitigating large amounts of discard and you penalising those that provide you with perfect information want to use those measures, if you catch a small amount and those that do not provide you with information of over-quota catch, through this scheme you can be get off. charged and incentivised to carry on fishing.” Where the 115 Public Bill Committee 6 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 116 scheme moves from being an incentive to being a penalty Q224 Peter Aldous: Before the Dutch built a whole is that if you habitually overfish, there must be a point new industry on the back of this, should the science not at which it is a penalty to you and you have to stop have come to a conclusion as to whether it was a good doing it. Clearly, you would have to manage quota in thing or not? such a way that the system can cope with that bit of Dr Carl O’Brien: It came to a conclusion that there overfishing. But in principle, it is a good idea. was not a conclusion. ICES held a number of working groups that reviewed the evidence. It was not conclusive Q222 Brendan O’Hara: One final question, if I may, that pulse trawling is detrimental because there are which follows on from what Mr Grant said. I was in positive benefits from having a pulse trawl. There is Greenland recently. There are species that have been anecdotal information from our own industry that at caught off the coast of Greenland that have never been certain times of year, you find cod with broken backs. recorded as having been there before. I presume that as That is certainly so for the Thames estuary, and it could species move north, species from the south move into be the impact of pulse trawling. Talking to some of the UK waters. How fleet of foot is DEFRA in terms of food producers who deal with chickens, one of the whether our fishing fleet should begin to harvest stocks reasons for not electrocuting chickens is that you break of fish that are not usually there? their backs when they go into spasms. That is exactly Dr Carl O’Brien: The easiest answer to that is that, in what would happen to a cod; it would also break its 2003, MAFF created the fisheries science partnership, own back. which is still funded by DEFRA. We asked fishermen I think the answer to your question is that until you for their ideas on specific projects. A lot of the ideas are actually have the evidence and it is conclusive that you selectivity measures, but we had a project a few years should ban a method, it is quite difficult to ban it. The ago where there was an emerging cuttlefish fishery Commission has gone out of its way to allow scientists down in the south-west. The fisheries science partnership to collect the evidence. The slightly surprising thing is was used as a way for the fisherman to work with that I was around when ICES gave its original advice, scientists to see the viability of a cuttlefish industry which was for 10 or 12 vessels as a scientific trial. It is down there. The problem with cuttlefish is that they now about 100 vessels, and that clearly is not a scientific come and go. They had a couple of years of quite high trial. I think you have to be very clear about the parameters catches, but then basically they died away. are when you give dispensations for gears. There is a strong role for science and industry to work together, because you would not want the industry to Q225 Peter Aldous: So the new UK fishing policy can gear up for a cuttlefish fishery that will last for only two be better than the CFP when it comes to sustainable years. The way we have worked in the past is the way I fisheries management. hope we would work in future. But you are right—if Dr Carl O’Brien: I think so. I have forgotten who there are emerging new species, there should be a dialogue asked me the question earlier, but if you are going to between the industry and scientists and also Government allow vessels to come into our exclusive economic zone, to see whether you should develop fisheries. In some we can put conditions on their access rights. If we cases, these will be species that we may not know very decide we do not like pulse trawling and we have our much about, a bit like the jellyfish. You would not want own evidence base to say that, I assume we can just say, to gear up for a high extraction rate of jellyfish without although it would not necessarily ban it, that any vessel understanding the implications for the ecosystem. There with pulse cannot come in. will be other species that feed off jellyfish. If we as humans are removing them from the system, those species will not have access to a food source. Q226 Owen Smith: Dr O’Brien, given your long experience of going to Council, how do you envisage The Chair: Three more Members have indicated they our country being treated during the transition period, want to ask a question, and I want to try to get them in when we will effectively have observer status? before 3 o’clock. Dr Carl O’Brien: I do not know, because I am under the impression that this is my last December Council, as Q223 Peter Aldous: Good science and evidence should it is for the Minister, unless I have been misinformed. underpin sustainable fishing, yet at the moment electric pulse fishing is going on in the southern North sea. Q227 Owen Smith: Given your experience in the past, How can we devise a new framework that stops such do you think it will be a problem that we are effectively practices and ensures that we pursue a precautionary attending and being consulted with, but are not having approach to sustainable fisheries management? direct influence as we have had previously? Dr Carl O’Brien: The short answer to that is that Dr Carl O’Brien: My worry and fear is for the other DEFRA is funding a project that my colleagues in member states. I have been to a number of Council CEFAS in Lowestoft are undertaking to collect more negotiations, to coastal states negotiations on mackerel, evidence on the detrimental effects of pulse trawling. It blue whiting, Atlanto-Scandian herring and to EU-Norway has to be evidence-based. The industry is polarised. negotiations. The other member states look to the UK There are those who hate it just because they hate it and to provide a lot of the science and the technical arguments. there are those who have a slightly open mind. The Countries will wave their arms and say, “We do not like scientific evidence is not conclusive that pulse trawling the Commission’s proposals”, but when it comes to is bad. There are clearly environmental benefits from it. facts, hard data and evidence, the UK leads the world. It certainly reduces fuel consumption and the impact on We provide the arguments and we sit with the Minister, the seabed, but there are some side effects. Species such the presidency and the Commission and we argue our as cod and haddock can be damaged by the pulse case based on facts and science. Other countries do not trawlers. do that. 117 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 118

Q228 Owen Smith: No wonder they are petitioning whether you are seeing aggregations of juvenile fish or for us to stay in. Can I ask you about recreational lots of older fish that are aggregating in certain areas fishing? We have heard people petitioning that the and being targeted by vessels. You would want to have a recreational fishing industry ought to have a more more adaptive management framework—certainly more official stakeholder role in future. Is that a view that you adaptive than we have with the common fisheries policy. have sympathy with? What is your view of the potential value of designating certain fisheries and species for Q230 David Duguid: Do you think the Bill creates an recreational fishing only? opportunity to do that? Dr Carl O’Brien: One of the problems with recreational Dr Carl O’Brien: I think it does, yes. As I say, it goes fishing, which is a disaster waiting to happen, is that hand-in-hand with the 25-year environment plan that when we carry out our bass assessments, we include you have an ecosystem approach to fisheries management. commercial catches from trawlers and larger vessels and We are in the process of defining what that actually recreational catches, but the only other assessment that means, but it is certainly not single species quotas; it is I am aware of that ICES carries out with recreational mixed fisheries and multi-species. catches is the western Baltic cod. In the case of the western Baltic cod, the recreational catch is far in excess The Chair: We are in the last minute. of the commercial fleet. In future, we need to have a better understanding of Q231 George Eustice: I have a quick question. We recreational fishing. We cannot ignore it, but we have to have heard some representations that we should make come up with a policy where you balance commercial the MSY commitment more rigid in the Bill. If the price and recreational anglers. I would not want to see them of getting an agreement with Norway is showing some being recognised independently of the commercial fisheries, understanding for their other scientific metrics, is it because in a sense, regardless of whether they are selling better to show that flexibility or to walk away and let their catch, they are competing with a commercial everyone unilaterally set their own quota? fishery. As I say, for the western Baltic cod, the catches Dr Carl O’Brien: No, I think it is better to be flexible. of the recreational anglers are far in excess of the I came into fisheries in the mid-’90s when exploitation commercial fleet. The CFP has tried to constrain the rates were horrendous—cod stocks were being fished to commercial fleet— fishing mortalities of 0.8; we are now down to levels of 0.4 or 0.3. We should still have that flexibility when we deal with Norway. I also think that it has to be an Q229 David Duguid: On the science, one of the major international negotiation. The UK cannot go it alone. frustrations—I was going to use the word “criticisms”, but that is too strong—I hear from fishermen is that the The Chair: On behalf of the Committee, Dr O’Brien, science tends to be at least two years old by the time it is I am grateful for your evidence today. We discharge you actually applied, and they are seeing more fish in their and invite our next witnesses to the table. nets or in the water than they are told to expect. Is there any way we can make the science more current, or is there anything we can do in the future to help with that Examination of Witnesses situation? Dr Amy Pryor and Elaine Whyte gave evidence. Dr Carl O’Brien: Our Minister will know, because 3 pm one of the first questions that every new Minister gets is, “Why are your scientists using data that is out of The Chair: I welcome our next witnesses and remind date?”. The reality is that, this year—2018—when we Members that we have to finish this session at 3.30 pm. carried out our assessments, we had landings data only Could the witnesses introduce themselves and their up to 2017. That is just a fact of life; we will not know organisations? the landings for this year until the end of the year. We Dr Amy Pryor: I am Amy Pryor. I am the programme have survey information, so when we predict next year’s manager at the Thames Estuary Partnership, chair of quotas, we are doing that based on 2017 landings data the national Coastal Partnerships Network, and a member and survey information that we have from this year, so of the Coastal Communities Alliance. that is where our two-year window comes from. Elaine Whyte: I am Elaine Whyte. I am a member of In terms of doing something that is more reactive, the Community Inshore Fisheries Alliance, and also of there are issues around juveniles. Certainly in Norwegian the Clyde Fishermen’s Association. waters, they have real-time closures that are almost instantaneous—certainly within 24 hours. In the past, if Q232 George Eustice: Obviously, a number of the fishermen found aggregations of very small fish, they areas that you cover will be highly influenced by the would have fished them and dumped them, but now if work of the IFCAs—the inshore fisheries and conservation they fish them they will have to land them, which will authorities. What is your view of how that model works? come off their quota. The sad thing is that by killing Dr Amy Pryor: From a wider stakeholder coastal those fish, they are then not there to reproduce into the communities perspective, we think IFCAs have grown future to rebuild spawning stocks. from strength to strength since they were set up under On the assessments, it is a fact of life that, essentially, the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. I lived through they will be two years out of date in terms of the them being set up, and they have grown in terms of landings data, but we will have current information gaining the respect of the local fishermen and putting in from research vessels and from fishermen. In terms of place fisheries partnerships with those fishermen to get management, it would be a more adaptive and proactive better data and better science. I attended an IFCA management where you could keep an eye on what is meeting just last week, and the representation on the going on in the sea and within our waters, in terms of IFCA boards is second to none—it is absolutely fantastic. 119 Public Bill Committee 6 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 120

The only thing I would say is that there is an opportunity Q236 George Eustice: Finally,some shellfish, particularly to get even better locally managed inshore fisheries by crabs and lobsters, tend at the moment to be managed formally empowering the IFCAs within the Bill, certainly predominantly by IFCAs through technical conservation. within England, instead of focusing just on the national Wealso have the western waters regime, which is effectively fisheries administrations. a days at sea quota regime, which is not very satisfactory. A number of people have said that we should move Q233 George Eustice: Obviously, IFCAs now have either to a catch quota system for crabs and lobsters, or the power to make bylaws through their local authority to restrictions on the number of pots that can be used, sponsors. What additional powers would you be seeking for instance, and try to do that nationally. Do you think through the Bill? that that is worth exploring, or should it just be left to Dr Amy Pryor: First and foremost, I was referring to the IFCAs? formal recognition in the wording of the Bill. However, Dr Amy Pryor: I really think it should be left to the if we could move to a more nimble, agile approach—as IFCAs. I must admit that I am not very up on lobster the scientist before us was saying—and have more locally and crab fisheries. We do not have them here in the based management of the fisheries based on local science, Thames estuary, as much as we would like them. It that ecosystem-based approach objective could be realised comes back to my point that, if it is locally managed much more easily. There could maybe be more formal and the IFCAs are running those decisions, they will powers in terms of quota allocation based on the science have all the information, along with the stakeholder of the local fishery. engagement consultation from the wider coastal community, to input into those management decisions. I think regional Q234 George Eustice: You would like almost a and local would work best. consultation role for the IFCAs in the way the quota Q237 Luke Pollard: Coastal communities have been allocation is done. among the hardest hit by austerity since 2010, but there Dr Amy Pryor: I am not sure about a formal consultation is a real chance that fishing could be part of a coastal role. Yes, that would probably work, but there could be community renaissance, if it is delivered in the right a better link between the fisheries data and the local way. What are the things that you are looking for in the situation, because each coastal environment has a unique Bill to deliver the renaissance that, whichever side of the set of challenges. Take the Thames estuary, for example. House Members are on, we all want to see in our It is an estuary; it is a highly dynamic mixed fishery. All coastal communities? of the fishing communities around the Thames estuary Dr Amy Pryor: There is actually a very large correlation are non-nomadic: they cannot go much further than a between small inshore fleets and coastal deprivation in few nautical miles offshore, so they are very restricted some of our most deprived areas along the coast. There by their quota allocations, which results in a large are two things. First, there is a lack of join-up between amount of discards and a large amount of bycatch. marine planning and land planning processes. Each They are the first ones who do not want to see that goes to the relevant high or low water mark, but they happen, so having additional powers within the IFCAs have different types of indicators and they do not link to work with the science on a more local, regional level in any meaningful way. would lead to more agile and much more relevant fisheries management in the local setting. Coastal areas tend to fall down the cracks between two planning systems, and what goes hand in hand with Elaine Whyte: It is slightly different for Scotland: we that are the financial funding streams that go along have the inshore fisheries groups, which are also fairly with it. The coastal communities fund, for example, is new in terms of taking on the same kind of role as the fantastic for the coastal communities that can access it, IFCAs. However, I agree that they have come on leaps but if you look at the local economic plans of each of and bounds in the past few years. Local management is the coastal community teams, very few of them even absolutely key, as is the socio-economic link to local recognise fisheries as an industry that is relevant for the communities. For instance, we often talk about choke area. That is obviously a massive missed opportunity. species; we hear a lot about whiting and cod on the west They also do not really recognise the water—the role of coast, but down in the south-west, it is spurdogs. Those the health of the marine environment—in driving the are the regional issues that we can work through with tourism that is central to their local economy. bodies like IFGs or IFCAs. In terms of the financial assistance elements of the Bill, it would be fantastic to see recognition of the need Q235 George Eustice: Wehave had some representations for a more holistic, integrated approach to our funding about the suitability of more of an effort-based quota, streams that recognises those multiple benefits so that particularly for the inshore fleet, rather than a tonnage we can really generate them. That would ultimately quota. As we set out in our White Paper, we certainly benefit the fishing industry, but in a way that better want to pilot and explore that for the inshore fleet. Do embeds it in the wider coastal community and opens up you think that would make more sense as a management the routes to market and the innovations in marine tool for fishing effort? businesses that we would all like to see on the coast. Elaine Whyte: Again, it is regional, and it depends That could contribute to the local economy, instead of on the fishery, but trials should certainly happen. We thinking that tourism alone will drive that. It would often say that the Clyde is already operating a days at also recognise that fisheries are a major part of tourism. sea scheme; we go to sea only five days a week in the They shape the cultural identity of— mobile fleet. There are various ways to look at it, but going regionally, looking at what works for each specific The Chair: Order. Apologies—with two witnesses, we fishery, and ensuring that we have trials is the right way have only half the time, so we have to keep the answers to go. short. 121 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 122

Elaine Whyte: I see potential, because I see those Elaine Whyte: To be fair, it is not just in marine communities that are quite sea-blind at the moment. planning, but in science. We always find that the science Local authorities are saying that they have never had a is lacking at local inshore levels. Again, we should be fisheries policies, or that they do not know that they looking to Norway and look at our local fleets as have active fishermen on their doorstep. That is a massive reference fleets and get the fishermen working with opportunity. We just have to look at how Norway has the scientists to provide that reflexive data that is taken 60% of quota allocations and given them to the needed. A lot of planners and other people sitting coastal communities to see them thrive. I would like to around the table do not quite understand what is happening. see that. There is a major problem there for stakeholders as well. I am slightly worried about the concept of auctions, What we do have around these timetables are a lot of which is obviously more English-based. I do not know stakeholders; we are very happy to have them, but how that will be reflected in UK fisheries in general. sometimes they bring their own science and ideologies. However, I see potential here for all communities around What we really need is an honest broker—that is how the coast. we can do it through marine planning and through local authorities. Q238 Luke Pollard: In terms of supporting small fleets, which generally speaking are the ones that have Q240 Brendan O’Hara: This is more to Elaine. Clause 10 the potential to have the biggest impact as quickly as is about the power to grant licences. Scottish Ministers possible in coastal communities, what measures do you and Northern Ireland Departments can do it. The feel we need to ensure are in the Bill to support the Scottish west coast fishing fleet is in close proximity to small fleet in particular? Northern Ireland; they fish in the same water for the same stocks. How concerned are you and your Dr Amy Pryor: It depends on what you call the small members about the possibility of different regulatory fleet; I prefer to call it a coastal fleet. Again, I would say frameworks for Scotland and Northern Ireland, and that you should look at what Norway has—their coastal what damage could that do to the west of Scotland fleet is 5 metres up to 30 metres. I think the definition fleet? can be quite wide. We have mobile guides and keel guides. We have to be just a bit more flexible about Elaine Whyte: With the greatest respect to Northern opportunities. It is about ensuring that we have the Irish colleagues, who we have fished with for a long time quota and licences available and that we are providing and whom we respect entirely, we are concerned about grants to get new starts into the market and giving them this, because it is the same stock from the same area. If a leg up. there are different tariffs and different rules are applicable, that will of course impact on our trade and our entire Dr Amy Pryor: I agree with all of that. I also second ability to fish. It is a massive concern. what NEF said about using transparent and objective criteria in quota allocation so that you really do start to recognise the sustainability credentials of the small-scale Q241 Brendan O’Hara: Has there been any analysis inshore fleet; it is common sense that they are much of what damage that would do to places such as Tarbert more sustainable by being local and non-nomadic and or Oban? using smaller vessels. Seafarers UK is very concerned, Elaine Whyte: No, but there really should be. There is though, that that can lead to a lack of safety at sea, socio-economic work on the marine protected areas where individual fishermen are piling as much gear as going on at the moment, but we really need to look at possible on to tiny vessels and souping up the engines, what we are landing from such areas. Nephrops are which is highly dangerous. It is about finding a balance the second most valuable shellfish that we have in the between keeping fisherman safe and having a fairer whole country and we really have to look at where distribution of quotas. they are being landed—a lot of them coming from Scottish waters are going to Northern Ireland at the moment. Q239 Peter Aldous: You referred to the need for co-ordination between marine and land-based planning. Would you say that the same would apply for Q242 Brendan O’Hara: How important to Community economic regeneration and a role for local enterprise Inshore Fisheries Alliance members is keeping current partnerships? access to EU markets, and is there any analysis of the damage that time delays would have on your ability to Dr Amy Pryor: Gosh, absolutely. In the last year or export? two, some LEPs with coastal areas—in fact, most have them—are starting to look towards the coastal communities, Elaine Whyte: As an alliance we are constitutionally but it certainly has not been that way since the beginning. and politically neutral. We have always said that and we It was a fight to get them to take notice of the coastal will work with the best outcomes possible, but we are areas and the role that they play. I see a role for LEPs very worried about market access, as we have said from and for coastal partnerships, because they have a lot of the start. We are looking at the delays. A lot of people trust from the local community and have been around are saying that maybe there will be six months and that for about 20 years; they pool all the different strengths that will be a problem. Our fleets could not really together. I would like to see more formal recognition in handle six months.Weare more aligned with the Federation the Bill—perhaps an extra marine planning objective of Small Businesses in the sense that a month or two that could actually set out these things. The Fisheries would be enough to harm our fleets. Bill cannot remedy everything, but it could take steps towards providing that integration, which would also The Chair: Amy, do you have any comments on that? achieve the objectives of the 25-year environment plan Dr Amy Pryor: I am going to leave that to the that the Government are committed to. Scottish and Irish experts. 123 Public Bill Committee 6 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 124

Q243 David Duguid: You started off by talking about That is something we should think about. We have a the local fisheries management, which was very interesting. gap at the moment in skills, and we possibly need to Harking back to what Dr O’Brien said about the data look at foreign workers. It is important, particularly for and how, by the time you have collected it all from the rural areas. I would look at things like the “become a whole country, a lot of it will be out of date, do you fisherman” scheme in Denmark, and how they have think the local fisheries management approach would managed to turn things around in their country and help that agility in making sure that the data is more up repopulate rural areas just by proactive marketing. We to date, particularly if the local fishermen are working need to do that. They are very skilled. with the scientists on a more real-time basis? Dr Amy Pryor: I personally do, yes. There are great Q246 Bill Grant: This question is for Elaine. You will examples all around the country where it is already notice from my accent that I am a west coaster. I am of happening. The next step is for that to actively inform an age where I have seen the demise of the fleets fisheries management. The IFCAs can create a byelaw running from Stranraer way up through to Oban, and I using that data, but if there was a more proactive would love to see that return. Do you think this Bill and approach rather than a reactive approach, we would other changes to the CFP, or the absence of the CFP, have very agile fisheries management. will give us an opportunity? Should we have better Elaine Whyte: A lot of people talk about training to make that industry more skilled than people environmentalists and fishermen, and I think a good perceive it to be? Should we have courses to encourage fisherman should be an environmentalist. We have been young men and women to go to sea and secure the fish to Norway, looked at their system and studied real-time that we have in relative abundance? closures, and they can close a fjord based on the patterns Elaine Whyte: Yes, absolutely. There is a generational that they see the fish recording. We could be far better issue. We have missed a generation, but we can catch up. at that, in terms of real-time closures, and that is We should have young men coming out of places such something that we would support. as Glasgow, where there is a port 30 minutes away, and Q244 Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/ thinking, “Actually, I could go to sea.” That is something Co-op): I would like to get your take on the prospect of that we have to be proactive on with Government. But I the redistribution of quotas. Obviously, on the west think we need to look at what has gone wrong. We can coast of Scotland there is a pattern of under-10s and look at somewhere such as Stornoway. Pre-1974, it was smaller boats prevailing, and they tend to land, by landing more than 85% of fin fish; it is now landing volume, a much smaller share of the UK catch, given 1% of fin fish. That possibly has something to do with the quantity of the fleet. What opportunity do you the EU; it possibly has something to do with domestic think there could be to enhance the distribution of allocations as well, so we have to look at it in a holistic quotas among the smaller boats, particularly those on way and try to give men, and women, a reason to want the west coast of Scotland? to go into the job. Nobody wants to tail prawns on minimum wage forever; people want the opportunity to Elaine Whyte: Again, a coastal fleet is not particularly have their own boat and to progress. just under-10s. Our median weight is probably about 14 metres, so I would consider them all in the same category.There is massive potential. Wehad some members Q247 Bill Grant: We should make the conditions and who are quota holders, and we spoke to them at the the financial rewards better and we could grow the beginning, thinking that they would want to protect industry in due course. their asset. They said to us, “We’ve had our money Elaine Whyte: Absolutely. 10 times over. Let’s look at doing something fairer for Dr Amy Pryor: I absolutely agree. The only thing I the new guys who weren’t born when the system was would add is that I think this is an opportunity to think brought in.” So yes, absolutely we see a fairer way to do about a more integrated approach to the way we do our this. training. I am talking about cross-sectoral training schemes and apprenticeships not only to spread the skills and Q245 Mr Sweeney: That is great. It is encouraging. highlight the fact that you can have multiple transferable The Department for Work and Pensions defines fishing skills, but to build relationships across sectors. We can as an unskilled industry. What is your take on that view? build those better relationships between the different Dr Amy Pryor: That is nonsense. Our fishermen have coastal sectors. To back that up, Sir John Armitt survived all sorts of adversity throughout the years. recommended this, as part of the Thames growth They are a massively untapped skill resource. You can commission, as a way forward, because we are lacking learn all sorts of skills through working in the fishing skills in all our coastal and estuarine areas. industry and not necessarily become a fisherman. You can also learn a lot of skills that are peripheral to the fisheries industry so that you are more agile as a fisherman. Q248 Owen Smith: We heard earlier from one of the When you do not have a quota or you have run out of big shellfish companies and we asked it about the days, whatever system is in place, you can move into impact of tariffs—potentially, 8% tariffs on shellfish. another sector like boat engineering or boat maintenance— How would that impact on smaller producers? all sorts of stuff. Just because they do not want to talk Elaine Whyte: We are extremely worried about that to you, and they might be secretive about what their and always have been. And apart from the tariffs, we are skills are, does not mean they do not have a huge extremely concerned about disruption and action, possibly, amount of skill. by French and continental fishermen, who might not be Elaine Whyte: I would add that if you can do your too happy about us getting access. That could be just as accounts and write a scientific report in a gale force big a problem as the tariffs, to be honest, so yes, we are wind while at sea, you are a very skilled businessman. very concerned. 125 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 126

Q249 Owen Smith: This is an enabling Bill, but what Elaine Whyte: We have a gap at the moment, and we degree of certainty do you feel about what fishing is have to make sure we are getting skilled workers in from going to look like in Great Britain in the years to come wherever they come from. I would say that we are as a result of the Bill? Are you confident? working towards a long-term domestic policy through Elaine Whyte: I heard a comment yesterday, I think, marketing. I would use the example of Denmark again or the day before about how the market will take care of and say that, 10 years from now, that is what we fishing. I do not think that is fair. I think that we have to should have. For now, we have to be realistic and make try to support our industry, to get the best of national sure we have got people there to teach the new guys benefit for our fishermen. I am confident that we could coming up. have a better future, but it depends on a lot of things. Dr Amy Pryor: Can I add something to that? Certainly We are not quite clear when we are coming out. We are within the south-west and the south-east, fishermen not quite clear what this financial framework means, have told us that there are plenty of skilled crewmen out across all the sectors, for the UK. And what does that there, but they move around a lot. They go where the mean? Does it mean that every year that we are negotiating opportunity is. Something as simple as a database that a deal with the EU we could barter fishing rights away tells young fishermen where there is a fishing opportunity, for another sector? Those things are still a concern and for how long, would go a long way towards filling for us. those gaps and making it a bit more attractive to be a nomadic land-based fisherman going between different Q250 George Eustice: I want to come back to something fishing communities to fill those holes. that Elaine Whyte said earlier about the concern that there might be different rules for different parts of the Q253 Mr Sweeney: I would just like to ask for your fleet, with Northern Ireland having access to west of view of the grant system offered in the Bill. Do you Scotland waters, for instance. Could you explain a bit think it may support smaller fishermen, particularly more what your concern is? Obviously, the Bill is trying when we are looking at fleet renewal and the potential to resolve quite a difficult tension, which is that fisheries industrial benefit to the UK? Do you think it is an is a devolved matter, yet it is also highly affected by opportunity? Do you think it needs better definition, or international negotiations, which are reserved. The way is it too vague? it does that is by giving each Administration the ability, Dr Amy Pryor: I personally think it is a bit too vague through clause 10, to have licence conditions, but then at the moment. The examples that we have had separate to that, in clause 31 and schedule 6, it gives the through the European fisheries fund and the European Administrations the ability to set their own technical maritime fisheries fund have gone a long way to enabling conservation measures, so if they wanted to have a fishing communities—especially the community-led local closure, for instance, that would apply to everyone, development mechanism and fisheries local action groups. whether or not it was on the vessel licence. There are Where they have worked well, they have worked extremely two means of doing it, and I think the Bill squares that well. They have had a huge impact and have gone on to rather difficult circle through that means. bring millions in investment into the local economy, Elaine Whyte: It potentially does, but it does not benefiting the whole coastal community. As an enabling square the tariff issue, so that is something that we Bill that says, “We are committing to provide financial would still have a concern about. Some of our members assistance,” it is great, but it could be a lot more have mentioned the issue of nomadic rights, and of prescriptive and detailed. It could break that down and course we understand that, but we always think that really represent the different sectors of the wider coastal there should be some link to the coastal communities community, as well as the fisheries. around about. They should not be disadvantaged by Elaine Whyte: I would add that it is important that lack of access to their own stocks, in a sense, as well. we somehow define fisheries through this, because I That is important to us domestically as well as between know a lot of instances where fisheries funds have been different countries and the UK. used for something that fishermen on the ground have probably never had any benefit from. It is good that we Q251 Brendan O’Hara: Mr Grant said, and I think consider who the stakeholders are, how we want this to we would all agree, that we hope to see young men and be used and whether fishermen will ultimately get the women from throughout Scotland going into a revived benefit of it. It is particularly important at a time when indigenous fishing industry, but we need to have an there is a lot of money coming into the fisheries policy industry there for them to go into. How do we bridge sector from environment non-governmental organisations that gap? Who will crew the boats and the fish processing and charities and whatnot—I counted about £4 million plants while we wait for that throughput? Given the into Scotland in the last couple of months for people geography of the west of Scotland in particular, the influencing fisheries policy. We need to be enabling our inshore fishing fleet is now at a critical point, is it not? fishermen to do something positive. Elaine Whyte: Yes, it is. We have some boats that are about 60 years old, which is not right, so we have to Q254 Mr Sweeney: Do you think that the ending of look at how we can help our infrastructure. There are the European funding is a risk? It is not clearly defined ways to do that. The Western Isles had a very good what will substitute for it in the future. If anything, boat-building scheme, which was very low-risk and there might be a cut in the overall level of state aid into allowed people to come in. We need to start building up the sector. those facilities along the coast. I would say that we need Dr Amy Pryor: Absolutely.There are no other funding that not just on the west coast but all around the coast. streams that are specifically for fisheries. There are none—absolutely none. Fishermen cannot access any Q252 Brendan O’Hara: But, particularly on the west of the other regional development growth funds or even coast, how do we crew or keep that— the other European funding streams. Having something 127 Public Bill Committee 6 DECEMBER 2018 Fisheries Bill 128 to replace it is essential, but there is an opportunity here Dr Amy Pryor: We would like to see better recognition to do things in a bit more of a holistic way, while of our estuaries and the links with the land. Estuaries benefiting the fishing industry. are the ovaries of the sea, and having them recognised Elaine Whyte: A small investment can make a big formally as part of this, with potentially better and difference. Some of the ports in the Western Isles, such more sensitive management, would definitely be the as Ceallan, have been European funded, and that has way to go to safeguard our stocks for the future. been a massive benefit to the community. Particularly in rural communities, it is a lifeline. The Chair: I am grateful to both witnesses for their Q255 The Chair: I think we have come to a natural evidence, and I thank them for their attendance today. conclusion, unless there are any final 10-second points Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. that witnesses wish to put to the hon. Members. —(Iain Stewart). Elaine Whyte: My colleague would never forgive me if I did not mention this. Wewould like to see communities having an opportunity to access things such as bluefin 3.29 pm tuna, because it could make a difference to artisanal Adjourned till Tuesday 11 December at twenty-five fisheries around the coast. minutes past Nine o’clock. 129 Public Bill Committee HOUSE OF COMMONS Fisheries Bill 130

Written evidence reported to the House FISH06 Professor Richard Barnes, The School of Law and Politics, University of Hull FISH04 Historic England FISH07 Heritage Alliance FISH08 Daniel Whittle, Whitby Seafoods Ltd FISH05 ANIFPO/Sea Source FISH09 Greener UK