UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE
To be published as HC 1563-vii

House of COMMONS

Oral EVIDENCE

TAKEN BEFORE the

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS Committee

REFORM OF THE COMMON FISHERIES POLICY

Thursday 8 December 2011

(Stade Hall, hastings, East Sussex)

DAVID SCOTT, BILL BROCK, PAUL JOY and GRAHAM DOSWELL

ADAM WHITTLE and PHILIP MacMULLEN

Evidence heard in Public Questions 418 - 461

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

1.	This is an uncorrected transcript of evidence taken in public and reported to the House. The transcript has been placed on the internet on the authority of the Committee, and copies have been made available by the Vote Office for the use of Members and others.
2.	Any public use of, or reference to, the contents should make clear that neither witnesses nor Members have had the opportunity to correct the record. The transcript is not yet an approved formal record of these proceedings.
3.	Members who receive this for the purpose of correcting questions addressed by them to witnesses are asked to send corrections to the Committee Assistant.
4.	Prospective witnesses may receive this in preparation for any written or oral evidence they may in due course give to the Committee.

Oral Evidence

Taken before the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee

on Thursday 8 December 2011

Members present:

Miss Anne McIntosh (Chair)

Mrs Mary Glindon

Neil Parish

Amber Rudd

________________

Examination of Witnesses

Witnesses: David Scott, FPO board member and past president of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations, Bill Brock, South Western Fish Producer Organisation, Paul Joy, co-chair of the New Under Ten Fishermen’s Association and South-East representative, and Graham Doswell, New Under Ten Fishermen’s Association South-East representative and chairman of Eastbourne’s Fishermen’s Association, gave evidence.

Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. It is a particular pleasure to be in Hastings today on our first outward mission, and to be with our colleague, the local Member for Hastings. Perhaps we should introduce ourselves for your information.

Neil Parish: I am Neil Parish from Tiverton and Honiton in Devon, and I am a member of the EFRA Committee.

Amber Rudd: I am Amber Rudd, Member of Parliament for Hastings and Rye.

Chair: I am the Chair of the Committee and I represent, for these purposes, the port of Filey, a very small coble fishery.

Mrs Glindon: I am Mary Glindon, MP for North Tyneside, and North Shields Fish Quay is in my constituency.

Q418 Chair: The purpose of our visit is, most importantly, to hear from you as part of our inquiry into reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. I would like to invite each of you to say who you are and perhaps make a two or three-minute introduction. I am a stickler for time, but at the outset we would very much like to hear who you are, whom you represent and anything else you would like to say, starting with Mr Brock.

Bill Brock: I am Bill Brock. Whom do I represent? I am here under the title of South West PO, but I am half-owner of a fish market business in the area, which also operates inshore vessels.

From several readings of the documentation, it seems to me that CFP reform falls into four categories where change is likely: decentralisation; science-based management; rights-based opportunities; and reduction of discarding. To try to keep it to two to three minutes-you could probably spend two to three days on each subject-I think decentralisation is a challenge well worth taking on. It means different things to different people, but taking away the EU’s ability to make sweeping decisions for each Member State would be a good step forward so that each Member State has control, but not full control. Underneath an umbrella of principles set by the EU, a Member State should have control over its fisheries and the management thereof.

As to science-based issues, we had a long chat beforehand. Again, it is a wonderful theory; in practice, it is found to be lacking in many respects because of the inevitable lag between reality and scientific data. A classic example in our fishing area, 7D, is the three key species: cod, sole and plaice. The scientists tell us there is a problem when we as fishermen and people in the fishing industry know that these three species are extremely abundant at the moment. That lag then causes problems for management. That is something we would have to look at.

As to rights-based opportunities, I had better explain that to most people "inshore" means under 10. In reality, "inshore" means those fishing inshore, including people with vessels that are slightly over 10 metres but still fishing inshore. Therefore, for the whole of the inshore fishing fleet, rights-based issues mean different things. We have a situation where the under 10s need assistance and a regulatory framework to get them into the same position as the over 10s and into a position of strength, so they can look forward to a better future.

As to reductions in discards, we have been doing a lot of work at South West PO to try to get the Government to come on board with us on discard survival rates. It is a great media soundbite to claim that discards are a problem, but they are not a problem if they are surviving. We need to do some serious scientific work on survival rates.

Paul Joy: I am Paul Joy, chairman of the Fishermen’s Protection Society in Hastings; I am the co-chair of NUTFA, and I sit on the committee set up by Richard Benyon about a year and a half ago to look at future management and short-term help for the industry. I am a full-time fisherman and I am also managing director of the fish market company in Hastings, so I have a dual perspective about the views, aspirations and difficulties facing the fleet of under 10-metre vessels here when it comes to keeping things afloat on land as well as on sea.

There are many different aspirations and perspectives within the industry at the moment about where it is going in future. I have read very carefully what has been produced so far by this Select Committee. I concur with everything I have read so far. On that, effectively there is an arbitrary divide, whether we like it or not, between the over-10 and under-10-metre sectors; it is not of our making, but it is there.

The fleet was divided into two effectively, giving the over 10-metre vessels the ability to form POs, buy and acquire quota and have stability in the sector. The under 10-metre vessels could not buy quota, form a PO and therefore, as far as I am concerned, a cartel was effectively put in place for the inshore sector.

We are looking at two avenues for the future management of the fishery. One is an FQA route and one is a pooled system where eventually, we hope, we set up an inshore PO with the ability to interact directly with the rest of the fleet. The problematic piece of the puzzle is where the quota is to come from for stability in the inshore sector, as it was not taken into the equation when we first went into the European Union. That is a difficult question, and I am not sure we will get to the bottom of it at this meeting.

David Scott: My name is David Scott. I have been around a bit. I have been chairman of Newhaven Fish and Flake Ice Society for 28 years; I was on the area 7 quota management committee that started in the 1980s; I am a board member of the FPO, and I was a member of the Sussex Sea Fishery Committee for 16 years, of which I was chairman for six. There are also a few other odds and ends.

If you have the time to listen, I can take you back to when quotas started just after the signing of the Common Fisheries Policy in 1983. Quite honestly, in area 7 there was not enough quota for everybody. The quotas fishermen had bore little resemblance to the stocks available. The over 10s had two decommissioning schemes, and a lot of effort went into fishing non-precious stocks for those people to get going. I know that I will upset both Paul and Graham, but I am going to tell you the truth. The under 10s were not licensed until 10 years after the over 10s. The problem it caused was one of tremendous growth. There were bits cut off vessels that were just over 10 to bring them under 10, and boats were built called rule-beaters. They were not rule-beaters; they were within the rules, but they still went into the under 10s. As the number of vessels increased, the available quota per boat went down.

Of course, there have been improvements in the gear since then. We started off with the Danish haulers at about that time; now there are much more efficient haulers, so more gear can be worked. There are certain fishermen-there are some in this room-for whom nothing has really changed in effort; it is the same, and I really feel for them. But there are some who also use shakers; they are using three times the gear they used at the time the quotas were set, so it has left a problem. I agree with what Mr Brock and Mr Joy have said in this respect.

Where do we go from here? There is now a split, which has been caused by the Government, between the over and under 10s. I still think that, if the POs sat down on one side and the representatives of the under 10s on the other, it could be resolved. I believe that fish could be given to the under 10s at the end of the year. Although it would be late in the year, it certainly would be in time to help.

What I have to say would go on for an awfully long time, but I think that issue can be resolved. I am quite happy with individual quotas, but not with quotas being set by scientific assessment if that scientific assessment is not 100%. You will agree with me, Chair, that it is ridiculous to have a situation where we are virtually knee deep in cod but fishermen cannot catch them. It is all because of guesswork on the part of the scientists, because they have not been able to put in the time to assess the stocks. We have cod virtually at the top of the food chain out there and people are eating squid, red mullet, even small soles, and stuff like that, which is far more valuable than cod.

I also jump straight back to the Sea Fishery Committee days in the early 1980s before the CFP. We were so proud we had a balanced fishery that was mainly market-led. If you caught too much, your price would drop. The fleet was so big compared with what it is today and all of it was sustained. Rye is full of pretty boats all lined up, the same as here. There were 44 boats here. I know you are going to stop me.

Chair: Mr Scott, we are going to pursue this.

David Scott: You have probably heard this from so many people.

Chair: We will come back to you with questions, so hold your fire.

David Scott: Okay; that will do. That is just the start.

Chair: You have done very well. We would like to hear from Mr Doswell, please.

Graham Doswell: I am Graham Doswell. I come from a fishing family. My father and grandfather were both fishermen. We worked off the beach at Norman’s Bay in a similar way to the lads at Hastings until the harbour at Eastbourne, where we now work, was built. At Eastbourne we have 30 commercial boats in the harbour and four boats still working off the beach. A lot of the boats working in the harbour are seasonal bass line fishermen, but there are 20 netters working from there.

The main worries facing the Eastbourne fleet in the reform are lack of quota, particularly for cod. We have struggled, particularly since the introduction of the register of buyers and sellers in 2005. Up until that point, most of our fisheries had an almost open fishery, where we could fish as hard as we could with the restraints of weather and other things like seasons, weed and stuff like that, which could curtail our efforts. Since the introduction of the RBS, the amount of fish we were actually catching was realised. MAFF knew full well the amount of fish we had been catching over the years and had colluded with us, if you like, in not bringing to bear any powers to deal with it. Unfortunately, since the registration of buyers and sellers, they have put the brakes on us, and it has caused an enormous amount of discarding, particularly of cod.

The highlighting of discarding in a recent television programme by Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall has backfired on us in a way. We were hoping to highlight the lack of cod quota, which has forced us to discard so much fish, whereas with reform of the Common Fisheries Policy there is a proviso that you will be allowed to fish only to the lowest common denominator; in other words, you can fish your cod quota until it has gone and then you will be stopped. If that was the case, the local fleet would have perhaps one day’s fishing per month with our ridiculously low cod quota.

I have been interested and involved in science fisheries projects. I have done work for CEFAS for 25 years. We are very keen to set up a fisheries science project whereby we can perhaps look at the stock in this area and try to get a better understanding of exactly how much fish is there. As I understand it, it is done only on a precautionary basis and there is no real science about the actual strength of the stock. I know we go on about cod, but it is fundamental and so important to the fleets at Hastings and Eastbourne. If we cannot get the cod situation right, we really have nowhere to go.

Q419 Chair: Thank you all very much indeed. There are certain themes developing that we would like to explore with you. I would like to ask a general question at the beginning. Mr Brock, you referred to decentralisation. Starting with Mr Doswell, can each of you say, given that we are where we are, what you would like to see for your sector out of the proposed reforms of the Common Fisheries Policy as regards the fisheries, mindful of the science, to which we will come?

Graham Doswell: What I would like to see and what may happen are two totally different things. I would like us to withdraw from the Common Fisheries Policy and bring the management of UK fisheries back into the hands of the UK.

Q420 Chair: If I may help, the Commission is looking at decentralising and bringing regionalisation.

Paul Joy: Is this through IFCAs?

Chair: Through the RACs. Will that help, or do you feel it is not relevant to you?

Paul Joy: I think it is relevant.

Graham Doswell: If we do not get an increase in our cod quota, however you shuffle the cards we are in the same position.

Q421 Chair: My understanding is that you will be given much more control over your fisheries.

Graham Doswell: It will still be based on size and, unfortunately, the science is so poor, unless we can prove otherwise. The other situation is that the French in area 7D have 76% of the total allowable catch, so if it was increased four-fold we would still have a problem. The situation goes back to day one, when we joined the Common Fisheries Policy and had a really poor deal in the share out.

David Scott: It is the same issue and the same question. I could not imagine IFCAs managing fish stocks at all. In this country we have producer organisations that are very good and clever. Although it costs a fisherman to be a member of those organisations, I believe it would be better even if the under 10s went down that road. If I were a politician, I would try to channel people into the POs, but I am adamant that the quotas must be realistic and be related to the stocks. I do not think there should be any guesswork at all. For 28 years I have heard fishermen screaming about the fact they cannot catch fish because they do not have enough quota. In the early years obviously it was the over 10s; now it has got to the under 10s, because that assessment is absolutely ridiculous. IFCA’s inspectorate has byelaws, and that is right. The POs work for the fishermen. If the under 10s want to form a PO, that is fine. I am just hoping that we can get enough fish without stealing it from the over 10s.

Chair: That is helpful.

David Scott: Will that do you?

Chair: For now.

Paul Joy: I go back to your initial question of what we would like to see. Effectively, first I would like to see a fair reflective rebalance of the quotas themselves, based on historic catch records, which does not exist at present. Where that fish comes from is not for me to answer. Effectively, we knew when we went into the system, especially in area 7D where we are sitting at present, that 93% of the vessels were under 10 metres and were not taken into the equation. That is the fault of the Government, not anybody else; it is not the fault of the fishermen or the over-10 PO members. Nevertheless, it has to be addressed. Where are we going to get fish to enable the inshore coastal communities to survive? It has to come from somewhere, and we have to redress the balance.

My main problem is allowing Defra to take the lead. Strangely enough, I was at a meeting the day before yesterday with an MMO management group that was looking at newer ways of dealing with managing fish without going through Defra policy. I believe that one of the biggest hiccups we have ever had is allowing an agency that does not have a hands-on approach to fisheries to dictate policy. As we are fully aware, to go back to cod, the MMO looked at historic catch records of 7D and awarded 70% to the inshore fleet. Defra overturned that decision and gave 70% to 7% of the fleet. Effectively, that is where we are today.

Bill Brock: To come back to your question about what we would like to see, not what is possible, CFP reform is a national issue, not a parochial regional one. We have to try to look at the bigger picture based on that. I forgot to say in my introduction that my background is that at least 95% of my income is derived from under-10 vessels, so by virtue of the fact I have to concentrate on under-10 issues, probably more so than over-10 issues, I would like to think I have a bit of a balance. Paul might say otherwise, and usually does when he is bid, but we are holding each other’s knees under the table, so do not worry.

Chair: As long as you are not holding hands.

Bill Brock: We can do that, if you like, later. To me, decentralisation falls into two categories. Decentralisation of policymaking away from the EU will be fully supported by the fishing industry. The saying "one size fits all" in the fishing industry could not be further from the truth. What a Frenchman needs-other than hanging-and what an Englishman, Greek or Italian need are completely different things. The idea that one set of rules fits all is almost childish. For me, the first layer of decentralisation has to be getting away from set rules to an area where you have principles.

Chair: I think we need to move on. You will have other opportunities. That leads neatly into Mary Glindon’s question.

Q422 Mrs Glindon: We have here a panel of expertise. In relation to what you have been saying about science, the Commission proposes that funding will be available to set up data collection partnerships between scientists and fishermen. You may already have answered some of this. Would you be keen to participate in the partnerships? Do you think that such partnerships could result in an improvement in the quality of the data about fishing stocks?

Paul Joy: Yes. Strangely enough, the lack of data is exactly what we have been discussing today with CEFAS. We are interested only in the TACs being relevant to the stock. Obviously, that has not happened in this area and it has led to a lot of problems. The closer we can work on it and have an evidence-based management system, the far happier we will be.

David Scott: I keep taking you back, but you have to realise that we have not sat down on this issue. We used to meet scientists here at Hastings. We told the scientists everything we knew about the stock, particularly cod. That is the number one problem here. It did not really do us any good. We told them what we saw as recruitment. We told them what was being caught here, there and everywhere. I am going back to the mid-1980s. It did not help. But we would like to start that again, because if we can get quotas that relate exactly to the stock in nearly all the TAC species today, I do not think we want to mess around and pour thousands and thousands of pounds of Government money into turning other stocks into TACs. We have agreed to have individual quotas, but if a particular species does not show up, where does a small boatman go?

Mr Brock has outlined what inshore boats are. The capability of these boats in terms of distance is not very great. They can work only a dozen miles or so from where they are beached or berthed. We must have some movement. If there is not any cod ever-there has been cod here for years-they have to go for something else. If they do not have a quota for it, we have a problem. Let’s bring the scientists down.

Bill Brock: The short answer to your question is yes. Of course we want to be involved, but I find it slightly offensive to be asked. We have been doing this for decades. Certain aspects of it have been counter-productive. I think everyone at this table has been involved in studies with scientists for more than two decades, and we are still in this position. Therefore, to be asked if we want to contribute to the fisheries science partnership, which is basically what you are asking, shows, first, lack of knowledge-it sounds as if I am having a go but I am not; it is the system-of what we have been doing, and, secondly, that the scientists have not taken a blind bit of notice of us for the last 20 years. I am sorry, but it is mildly offensive.

Paul Joy: Evidence-based TACs have been taken into account only for the over 10metre sector for decades. To be very clear, we have worked with scientists; we have given evidence etc, but when we set TACs on the basis of stock assessment, under 10-metre fleets did not come into the equation. That is where the problem lies. We are now looking at it, and we have been talking about it today. When you have an area such as this, where 93% of the vessels are under 10 metres, subsequently you have a massive void in the input of data. That is where the problem lies.

Q423 Mrs Glindon: In my question I should have placed emphasis on its being a partnership. You said that you have worked with the scientists but feel that perhaps it has not been a two-way process and what you have done on your side of the bargain has not been taken on board, so to speak.

Chair: We rehearsed these on the train on the way down.

Mrs Glindon: It is a matter of your being listened to and something coming forward. Would that be more relevant?

Graham Doswell: I was involved in a fisheries science partnership project a few years ago to track the migration of cod in the English Channel to try to assess whether it was connected to the North Sea, or was a separate stock in the English Channel, or was linked to the Celtic stock. At that time our TAC was based on the strength of the Celtic stock, which unfortunately was in a poor state. We found that a lot of the fish was a local stock that fed the North Sea with small juvenile fish on spawning.

I am not offended. I would be very keen to continue any fisheries science partnership projects to improve the information, but we could easily prove that the stock here is very strong. Nobody would doubt the strength of the stock here. We were talking to the scientists earlier. The problem is the local area. The areas are conveniently set out as 7D and 7B to K, but, however strong the stock is in this particular area of 7D, it does not necessarily mean that the scientists are happy that the actual overall cod stock in the North Sea or
English Channel is strong. We are fortunate in some ways; we can fish where the amount of fish is high with a very strong local population of cod in this area. Unfortunately, even if the scientists come with us and can agree on that, it does not necessarily mean that the overall strength of area 7D will increase the total allowable catch. Anyway, we are still very happy to carry on as much as we can.

Paul Joy: On the same basis, historically we have had a situation whereby we have been working on the lowest common denominator on quota allocations. In B to K we had a reduction in stock and the North Sea had an increase in stock. All of a sudden, we were Celtic stock. Then we suddenly became North Sea stock and the Celtic stock improved, and we got a decrease in stock again. We have always been in the lowest common denominator when it comes to reducing quota; we have never had the benefits of increased quota. Unfortunately, it has led to a position whereby effectively we have cod either side of us that is able to be caught by fleets of both sizes, yet in the middle, where the stock is at its strongest, it seems we have literally got nothing because of the paperwork.

Bill Brock: I would like to link the last two questions. You asked us whether we would like decentralisation. Although I do not want to get bogged down with one species, cod, it is a very good illustration of why, on the one hand, we are talking about whether on a regional basis we can manage decentralisation, and, on the other hand, having had the industry prove the stock in the area in which it lives, we are still faced with decreasing quota availability due to national control. If we went down to decentralised control, would we have any ability to question that? All four of us question whether we would be able to do that.

Q424 Neil Parish: It is great to be here in Hastings. Here we have almost the most difficult parts of fishery policy. You have the under 10-metre fleet and a mixed fishery. We talked to fishermen this morning. For instance, at the beginning of this year you were going out catching sole and picking up plaice, a lot of which was being discarded. Now when you are catching sole, you are picking up quite a lot of cod, and if you do not have quota for that, again it is discarded. We are very keen to reduce and try to get rid of discards altogether. If you had a blank sheet of paper, what would you do about it? There’s a question for you.

Paul Joy: Quite simply, we advocate a way forward based on technical measures that are very easy to introduce. Our philosophy is clear: let all fish grow big enough to breed before they are caught. It is a very simple strategy, but it results in an abundance of stock. For instance, for cod in the winter period we work with 150 to 200 millimetre mesh. I have worked 30 nets, and if I catch one cod a net and get 30 cod, I can sustain my vessel and four crew and we would all be very happy. We are now told we cannot catch cod, even though the stock is more abundant, and effectively I must go and catch sole, which means going out with smaller mesh nets and catching more cod than I would necessarily have seen before. It also means that I must discard all I have caught in trying to pursue a separate species.

One of the main problems is understanding how technical innovations can work and be introduced to a fishery, but it is no good saying there should be technical measures alone because they will be aligned to quota. Unfortunately, for the next decade, quota will be prevalent for inshore communities. If we could work on technical measures and come outside a quota system, great; then it would be very easy to do, but I do not think the industry itself has any willingness to go that way, apart from the inshore sector, which wants to detach itself from the quota system and for the existing quota system to be reworked among the people who already have their quota. We strongly advocate that technical measures are an obvious way forward, but a willingness to take on board that perception by the industry is something we have not come to yet.

David Scott: What we have to do is a great deal more than just fine-tuning. When we have a great abundance of stock, we need the ability to catch more of that stock quickly, not to go on year after year. I know we keep mentioning the cod, but it is so important particularly to the smaller boats and the ones Bill described. The scientific assessment has to be up to date and right on the button and that should dictate the quotas.

Of course, there will always be some discarded, but not all that is discarded is dead. It depends on the fishery. If we are trawling, or the short haul comes up, the first thing over the side is any small fish. There will always be something, even with all the technical aids we have in our trawls. That is tomorrow’s or next year’s living. That has been adopted by many fishermen. I used to see this all the time. We want to be sure of that. It is great to get your question through the Chair, but that is what must happen. It is no good letting the rot set in year after year, and then suddenly deciding that the quota should be increased.

I make loads of mistakes-I look a mistake-but I have to put them right instantly; otherwise, there is trouble. The same thing should apply to fishery managers and the Commission, and it should be recognised at the Council of Ministers meeting each year. There should be some interim measure to put things right.

Chair: That is helpful.

Bill Brock: Dave is 100% right that fast reaction to stock levels is crucial to the question of discards. As I said in my introduction, we have to be very clear that one person’s discard is not another person’s discard. It is very easy for Mrs Damanaki to say glibly, "Let’s ban discards"; you have to look at individual fisheries and ways of fishing within a fishery to work out what is a discard. If a discard survives, what is the problem? What is the problem with the majority of discards? CEFAS give us survival rates of between 33% and 70% on a lot of finned fish. I do not see a huge problem with that. It would be nice to get it towards 100%.

You asked specifically what we would do if we had a blank sheet of paper. The first thing you would do is survival rate trials to see what you are looking at in terms of both species and fisheries, so you are looking at different types of fishery and also depths of water, because it makes a big difference. Once you know the survival rate, you would then look at protocols of how to use that gear to maximise the discard survival rates. At the very last, only in particular fisheries, of which single species fisheries are a classic example, could you even dream of imposing discard bans. A discard ban is just putting people on the dole; it is as simple as that. Discard banning in the majority of fisheries would increase mortality. We should always talk of mortality, not discards; mortality is what takes stock out of the biomass.

Graham Doswell: Given a free hand and a blank sheet of paper, I would love to try to design a year’s fishing around the fishing methods we use now with a bit of tweaking. I guarantee that we could fish the whole year and still make a good living with zero discards. The gear we use is so selective. Generally speaking, we fish within sight of our front door. I very rarely lose sight of the roof of my house when I fish. We have to rely on fish coming to us. In certain years we have an abundance of plaice, cod or sole; sometimes it is everything, but it would be really good to try to design a fishery so we had zero discards, but we would need enough quota of each species so that, when it came within our grasp, we could fish that, make a good living and be quite happy.

Q425 Neil Parish: We always talk about the sustainability of fish and types of fish. Most of the fish fishermen land here is sold through the local market, but a lot of that then goes to France, doesn’t it? What are we doing wrong? Why are we not as a nation eating more of the fish that you are landing?

Bill Brock: Very briefly, that is an old-fashioned viewpoint. I own half a fish market. About 10 years ago that statement would have been accurate. I am sorry to say you are out of date.

Neil Parish: I am happy to say that I am out of date.

Bill Brock: So am I. Probably a decade ago we sold perhaps 30% to 40% of our product in the UK; now we sell 70% of it in the UK. You may think as a panel that there is another 30% to go, but there are an awful lot of products that you will never sell in this country. To give a classic example, we and these gentlemen here rely on cuttlefish. At the present stage-I think it will change-you could beat yourself blue but not sell more than 5% of your cuttlefish catch in the UK. Other nations’ historic eating habits are different from ours, and that applies also to different sizes of fish.

Paul Joy: Bill is absolutely right. First and foremost, market forces depend on the best possible price for your fish. Whoever pays most gets it; it is as simple as that. We market what we can in this country. Obviously, it is better to market in this country; transport and everything else costs less. The more we can sell here, the better. To go round in a circle-I am sorry to bore you again-there is a fish and chip shop in our fish market and fish shops on the front. We import cod from Iceland and Norway for our fish and chip shops. We sell all Icelandic fish in our fish and chip shops and dump our cod in the harbour. You tell me the logic of that.

Q426 Amber Rudd: I am not going to answer that particular question today, Mr Joy. I would like to ask you about transferable fishing concessions. As you no doubt know, it is possible that from the Common Fisheries Policy renegotiation we will get transferable fishing concessions for over 10 metres-that has been proposed pretty firmly-but the consideration is whether we should have it for under 10 metres. That will be up to different countries to implement. We saw the Minister yesterday; we have had several discussions about it. We took evidence from Jerry Percy earlier in the year. It seems to us there could be a system of transferable fishing concessions for the under 10-metre group that would improve the status quo by delivering, hopefully, more quota but also a fixed quota. At the moment, in a way you have to deal very much with Defra, which is part of the problem, not just CFP. Can you give us your views on transferable fishing concessions and how they might work for the under 10metre group? What sort of valves can we put in place to make it work and improve the status quo?

Paul Joy: They will not work; it is as simple as that. I will explain why as quickly as possible. There is not enough fish in the system for ITQs or fixed quota allocations for vessels to be adopted. There is not enough fish in the pool to give everyone a fixed quota allocation without from day one leasing quota. If you lease quota, you increase effort because you need twice as much fish to pay your bills. There are not enough fish. We are all fully aware of this. Even the producer organisations agree with us that this is not the way forward. Our ability to survive in the under 10-metre sector-the small-boat sector-is diversification and to have a pooled system that we can transfer and use to let some fishermen fish on one species and others on another species. Without that adaptability, an FQA system means we would be on a hiding to nothing. "Flexibility" is the key word. Without the flexibility to do that, a fixed quota allocation system for the under 10s would be an absolute disaster.

Graham Doswell: I fully agree with Paul; he has covered all the points on that.

Bill Brock: I agree with Paul to a certain extent. His statement that ITQs and FQAs will not work and that they need the flexibility for the under-10 fleet is 50% right. Their whole ethos is based on the need for flexibility. I have 38 under-10 vessels that land to me. Whenever we get together and talk, flexibility is the key word for the under-10 fleet. The bit on which we slightly disagree is that, if the under 10s had a PO, the fact each individual vessel had an ITQ would not be enough. I totally agree with Paul. By far the majority of the vessels with ITQs in the over-10 sector do not have enough. It is a fact of life. But because the under 10s are given an ITQ does not mean that is the management mechanism the inshore PO has to adopt. Every over-10 vessel has an ITQ, but that does not mean you have to give it exactly that amount of fish. You can run it as a pool, as the Cornish and the South West POs do for the inshore vessels. We can overcome that.

The problem we all have, the under and over 10s alike, is that the quota pool is not enough. That is a major hurdle we have to get over, whether you are talking of under or over 10. For the over-10 vessels, we already have to supplement with leasing the amount of quota they have to go fishing with.

David Scott: If the quotas were brought up to a level that related to the stock, in many instances in area 7-I am not going to speak about area 4, or any areas other than 7-there would probably be a change of view, but as of this moment it is not possible. That is the ideal situation because it would take a lot of the management away from the Government, and that is what they want. The under-10 issue is a nasty one and it would be nice to put it into POs.

Q427 Amber Rudd: Before I ask Mr Joy to answer that question, may I add that this is as much about trying to find the right structure as trying to get the right amount of fish? This is a one-off opportunity with the renegotiation of the CFP to make sure the structure is right. If you are so against transferable fishing concessions, would you be in favour of having a sort of arrangement whereby there was a pooled TFC for the under 10s, as we were discussing? Maybe you call it a group PO, or an improved management system. I am really interested in getting to the bottom of that now, although we want to talk about the amounts and quotas. What would be the structure, given what is proposed by the CFP currently?

Paul Joy: One of the problems is management of the PO structure and the system we have at the moment. I suppose the best way of putting it is that it is not fit for purpose. Let’s bring in cod, as we have not spoken about it yet. We have effectively 44 tonnes, and we were on 50 kilos a month. We got to the end of the year and there were 26 tonnes left, because we were not allowed to allocate it in case we overfished it. Effectively, that is a total mismanagement of the small amount of quota we have. We need to utilise what we have.

To go back to Bill’s point, he said there were not enough fish in the pool. If you look at where the fish are at present and the quota Britain has, 76% of the fleet have 3% of the quota. That is a figure you cannot argue against anyway. Whatever happens, that is what you have got. If they have not got enough and they have 76% of it in the PO sector, how the hell are we going to run an FQA system on the basis of a realignment at 3%?

Bill Brock: To come back on that point, we are talking here about individual boats not having enough and having to supplement by leasing. Paul is talking about structure, and he is quite right to do that. Do not get bogged down in what cod quota you have, or any other. As to structure, the under 10s effectively have a PO now; it is just not fit for purpose because it is very poorly managed, but I find difficult to swallow the idea of moving away from that and splintering it-Paul and I talked earlier-into a community quota system. I think that when you splinter what is already a small pool of fish into micro-pools, your ability to swap and transfer fish is limited.

Q428 Chair: I would like to bring together some of the strands. Would it be fair to say that there is a slight disagreement between what you believe the fish stocks are and what the scientists say?

Paul Joy: Not necessarily, because scientists say they do not know. In this area they agree there has not been sufficient work, because the work has already been based on the over-10 sector. All the scientific work on cod has been looked at in the over-10 sector. We did not come into the equation.

Bill Brock: The answer to your question is yes.

Q429 Chair: What do you envisage as the best way forward? We have heard about the partnerships we are trying to seek. I will ask each of you in turn to comment. How do you believe we can best proceed to reach a balance? We are hearing one thing from you and one thing from the scientists. How does this impact on the coastal community of Hastings itself?

Graham Doswell: We spoke to the scientist earlier in the café. He agreed with us that there was a very strong stock in this area. But they will not give any more allocation because 7D is a much bigger area. That is the problem we are up against. Unless they broke it down into much smaller local areas, there is little chance because the overall cod stock, for instance in the North Sea, is showing a decline.

David Scott: I am prepared to try again. We have the problem, so let’s meet the scientists quickly. We will do a little more work on their side to see where the fish are being caught other than around here. If I may say to Mary Glindon through the Chair, if you could arrange for us to meet the scientists quickly, this month for instance, we will put our point of view and listen to why our people have had to tolerate such a situation for so long.

Paul Joy: Science and having it transformed into a total allowable catch is a long-drawn-out process. We want to go down that road, but if you are asking what can be done, there is only the rebalance of quota to give everybody a fair and proportionate share of their fishing interests based on historic catch records.

Bill Brock: To answer your question concisely, the whole inshore fishing industry wants to meet scientists but insists upon taking them out to show them. We want to insist upon the length of time, as Paul as touched on, between what we are seeing with our eyes on a daily basis and it coming to fruition. That has to be very short; otherwise, science is a limited tool in fisheries management.

David Scott: The situation is so bad that, if we gave the under 10s-Paul’s crowd, if you like-all the cod quota, it would not be anywhere near enough. That is how badly out of line it is.

Graham Doswell: If we could realign the cod quota internationally, we would be in a much better position. That would be a really good move.

Chair: Thank you very much for participating. We have learnt a huge amount, and I hope we do justice to what we have heard this afternoon.

Examination of Witnesses

Witnesses: Adam Whittle, Billingsgate Seafood Training School, and Philip MacMullen, Seafish, gave evidence.

Q430 Chair: Gentlemen, good afternoon. Thank you very much for joining us. We regret that Mr Hales, whom we had been expecting to see, is unable to join us through no fault of his. I think you know who we are; you were in the room earlier. We welcome you most warmly. Perhaps you also would like to say who you are, whom you represent, and each of you in turn make a two or three-minute statement as before.

Adam Whittle: My name is Adam Whittle, and I am the industry consultant at Billingsgate Seafood Training School. I often work as a fishmonger-that is one of my primary duties-and I am a trainer at the seafood school. We are a small charity based at Billingsgate market. We work in a unique position with young people and also members of the industry and public, so I hope to be able to bring to the panel this afternoon a helpful insight from those three groups. We have a link with this facility and Hastings itself in helping it develop its educational opportunities with a classroom on the coast here. I think that, on the back of a sustainable fishery, is a golden opportunity not to be wasted.

Philip MacMullen: Thank you for the opportunity of presenting to you. My name is Philip MacMullen. I am officially known as the Head of Environment at Seafish, which I suppose could mean I am a sort of deity. Despite that, I am not. Seafish is an NDPB. We provide support to the UK seafood industry as a whole, so we have expertise covering a whole range of things from ship building right the way through to fish quality, fishing gear technology, consumer demands, reputation management and the like. We cover a lot. I suspect that the expertise relevant to this particular hearing comes from me and Hazel Curtis, who unfortunately could not make it; she is stormbound in Scotland, but she is happy to present some written material, should there be any particular questions you want to follow up with her. That covers the economic assessment of changes to the Common Fisheries Policy and the areas specific to my past.

I started off as a fishing gear technologist designing fishing gear. I have a long history of modifying fishing gear to improve selectivity of different types of fishing gear, moving on to how you can treat the social, economic and legal framework that might encourage the adoption of more selective fishing gear. I am chair of an ICES working group that deals with unaccounted mortality, which includes escaped mortality from fishing gear and discarded fish. Those are areas you may wish to pick up on. I also have a keen interest in the data of the science base that management is based upon. We have done a lot of recent work with the inshore systems alluded to earlier about fishermen collecting data, and it being transmitted more or less real time, so you can also follow that up if you wish.

As to the three areas of main concern, on the economic side of things Hazel has asked me to say that, generally speaking, the Commission’s proposals are at too high a level to enable any particular analysis or modelling to be undertaken. We can look at extreme scenarios but not really at what is possible or likely given there is so much latitude for Member States at the moment and so much difficulty in trying to predict any outcomes.

I am particularly concerned with data on stock assessment and total fish mortality, not just of commercial species but other non-commercial species that may nonetheless be important for management purposes; the fact that the Commission is not proposing to set any standards for data collection and is giving Member States freedom to set their own standards effectively; and the lack of guidance on discard management strategies, so we could potentially have a lot of escape mortality. I was involved with the STCF committee that dealt with the Commission’s previous proposal to limit or eliminate discarding, and we found that severely lacking. I am concerned that some of the strategies at the moment may cause the problem of landing fish that could survive, or significant escape mortality from fishing gear, to be moved out of sight and out of mind. Those are some of the areas you may wish to pick up.

Q431 Chair: Thank you both very much indeed. I had the good fortune to visit Billingsgate market and meet CJ very briefly. We are full of admiration for what the school does. We will ask some questions of the school in a moment. Mr MacMullen, based on some of the evidence we have heard in the course of this inquiry, there would seem to be grounds for developing selective gear and allowing certain fish not to be caught or discarded. Do you think that is something in which Seafish could play a greater role as part of the reform of the CFP?

Philip MacMullen: I spent 20 to 25 years of my life working on those sorts of things, particularly the generic devices. The problem always had been that we would go down to the quay and say, "Hi, guys; we’ve got a solution to this problem," and they would say they did not have a problem. Until now, the problem has not been defined so clearly, and the pressure has not been on until recently. There is scope for a significant amount of improvement in the selectivity of fishing gear, but there are still barriers to adoption. One is the legal framework, such as that a lot of more complex designs are almost impossible to define in law. Unless you move from the prescriptive system we have, which says exactly what you can use, and towards something that has increased monitoring and gives a results-based system, you are unlikely to be able to take up some of these new devices. The Norwegians do that to some extent. They say, "If your result is that you get more than 10% non-target catch in a given area, you stop fishing." You then have an incentive to use your ingenuity-fishermen are the most ingenious people in the world-to devise the means by which you can reduce your nontarget catch. But the fisheries directorate does not specify the means, apart from the adoption of grids. You can use other methods as well. There is a legal barrier to the uptake of technical devices.

There is also the problem that you need to assess the impact on particular species, particularly in periods of bad weather. You can find that, when gear is surging in the water, fish touch the sides of the devices; they are scaled and get stressed. Even though you may think for a minute, hour or day they look healthy, unless your experiment to check the survival of those fish-whether they are going out from the fishing gear or are kicked over the side of the boat-is structured well enough, you will not have a good, accurate picture of those survival levels. You probably need to work over a period of probably two or three, maybe even four, weeks, because progressive weakening, stress and increased predation can be quite significant, depending on species.

Chair: That follows on very much from the previous session.

Philip MacMullen: Certainly.

Q432 Chair: What more could we do to monitor or hold survival rate trials, as the fishermen suggested?

Philip MacMullen: A huge amount of work could be done.

Q433 Chair: Why is it not being done at the moment?

Philip MacMullen: Historically, it has been extremely expensive. The work has been done most by the Norwegians, Icelanders and Russians. Some work has been done in this country, but it has not been particularly well structured. To do work like this properly, generally it has been thought you must have a controlled population of completely unstressed animals. If you are working with plaice or sole, that is not too difficult because they are as tough as old boots, but if you are talking of haddock and whiting, you can look at them and they will die, effectively. First, you need to find ways to hold a stable population that you can then treat the same as an escaped population. That is quite difficult.

A new way of thinking is to look at what we call reflex actions. You can find key indicators for particular species, such that if you pick it up and it looks at you and smiles, you know it is reacting normally; if you flick it on its nose and it reacts in a certain way, it is probably in quite good physiological condition. There are key indicators we can develop that do not require these long-drawn-out trials that cost hundreds of thousands or millions of pounds or euros. But we do not yet have that methodology established; we do not have the framework that would allow us to have confidence in the experiments we would need to carry out to have a good set of results.

Chair: That is helpful.

Q434 Mrs Glindon: The witness from the restaurant is not here. Does the reputation of restaurants rely on the fact that the fish they are preparing and cooking is caught locally? Is that now an important factor?

Adam Whittle: Increasingly so. You can look at the restaurant trade and perhaps split it into two main groups. The mass market-the more affordable end of the market-would perhaps be more generic, but certainly à la carte menus would strongly benefit from the sustainable provenance and locally caught aspects of the seafood on those menus. I would see it as being split between perhaps two different groups within that industry. I would not say it covers all restaurants with equal importance.

Q435 Amber Rudd: How difficult is it going to be to try to get consumers to move away from the big five fish to less well-known types?

Adam Whittle: I think consumers are very open to it. We engage with consumers on a daily and weekly basis, and they are enthused by campaigns in the media. Certainly, the "Fish Fight" campaign of Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall was a lightning rod call to action for the consumer. They know there are issues out there and they are open to trying it, but it is matter of reinforcing it. Education still has a considerable role to play. They are open to it and, given the spur, they will make those changes, but we have to keep banging the drum.

Q436 Amber Rudd: Are you concerned that what we will get is more consumption of the most popular fish rather than diversification of the less popular and well-known fish? Can we try to do more to achieve that?

Adam Whittle: Absolutely. I strongly believe that can be done through education, celebrity chefs, awareness of availability and the correct supply chain. I was delighted to hear that Bill had switched his business round from export to the local market. Those types of actions, with increased availability, will give the consumer the opportunity to continue those choices.

Q437 Amber Rudd: Mr MacMullen, do you want to add anything to consumer patterns on different types of fish?

Philip MacMullen: It is often difficult to make the sums work if margins are low. If we are talking about the food service side, the restaurant trade, margins are a bit higher.
There is often a market disconnect in trying to sell under-utilised species directly to consumers. If prices are relatively low, margins are low. The logistics of picking up small amounts from around the coast and bringing them to a particular point often do not stack up particularly well. If they did, they would have been commercialised before this. You do need to keep them local; you need specialist outlets to maintain the margins and get profitability.

Adam Whittle: We have done significant work on the Fishing for the Markets project with Defra and the Discards Action Group. In recent years a lot of those species have seen an increase in uptake. Dabs, pouting, gurnards have seen significant increases in market prices from, say, 50p up to £4.50 a kilo on the market. Therefore, prices have increased and positive things are happening. It is a matter of maintaining the momentum that we are building up. Things are moving in the right direction.

Q438 Chair: Do you believe Defra should have a role?

Adam Whittle: I have found insight and positive action on this matter coming specifically from the Fishing for the Markets project funded by Defra. That was very helpful for me personally. We have certainly integrated that in all the training programmes we do for the public, young people and the industry. It has definitely been an important and useful project.

Philip MacMullen: We are working on Defra’s behalf on some of the Fishing for the Market projects. One of the ways in which we think we can increase uptake of under-utilised species is through the inshore management vessel monitoring system, which is tied in with electronic logbooks. We are suggesting there should be a combination of access to the data inshore vessels report so that commercial companies can access part, know exactly what is coming on these boats in the evening and arrange for those species to be picked up for particular purposes. By doing so, we can bridge the current market disconnect, where buyers just go to the market hoping there will be certain species, and fishermen are not necessarily landing those species because they do not know they will get a sale for them.

Q439 Chair: We were very impressed by what we saw in Denmark with the live auction with which we were allowed to play. It was absolutely amazing.

Adam Whittle: That sort of information would be very helpful. I have been speaking to some of my colleagues in the catering sector and asking them where they were sourcing, how much English fish they were buying and whether they had bought from Hastings. They described Hastings as a rather hit-or-miss fishery. Sometimes there would be good supplies of fish; at other times it would not be available, so it made it difficult for them to make buying decisions on a slightly longer-term basis. Certainly, if that type of mechanism was in place, it would be easier for them to commit to particular buying on a particular day.

Q440 Neil Parish: I want to go back to fishing gear. We sit here in very much a mixed fishery. If fishermen do not have cod quota, they will go for Dover sole. If they do that, can you produce smart gear that will not catch smaller cod and what have you? In an ideal world, you would like to go out and catch just what you want and leave behind what you do not, but I do not suppose it is quite as simple as that.

Philip MacMullen: You are right. There are two problematic species, and you have both of them. Cod is a very low-stressed, laid back, indolent type of fish. You can have all the signs in the world saying "Escape this way" and they do not. The Swedish have a very effective cod-end called the BACOMA. There are side panels in the cod-end with rigid meshes, and cod can find their way out of those. When you have a mixture of cod and Dover sole, the latter has the texture of flesh that is so valued because its musculature is so strong. They are incredibly strong fish, which is why in a cod/plaice fishery you must have a small mesh size. The Dover sole will push their way through relatively small meshes that plaice cannot get through, so you retain a lot more plaice. The combination of cod and Dover sole is probably one of the more problematic ones, but you can do it with a lot of other mixed species. You need to tailor generic devices to the local expertise of fishermen to tune them to the particular fisheries.

Q441 Chair: We saw the nets in Denmark, and they are absolutely fascinating. They are hugely expensive. Agreement has been reached between the Danish and Swedish fishermen.

Philip MacMullen: I have to say they do not need to be that expensive.

Q442 Chair: I think it depends on whether they are mass produced. If they are doing it for such a small box, then it is more difficult.

Philip MacMullen: And controlled production.

Chair: To me, this would seem to be the way forward.

Q443 Neil Parish: Are we able as a country to develop the type of selective gear we should have, or are we held back by Brussels, or whoever, as to what we can and cannot use?

Philip MacMullen: What can be used is absolutely constrained by the technical regulations. You are told exactly what you are able to use. I do not know whether you have seen the presentation by ICES’s chief scientific adviser. He puts up a sign for driving a car equivalent to fishing regulations. It says, "If you are driving an Audi, you can move your accelerator only so many millimetres." It is incredibly complex. What you want is an outcome like 30mph or 40mph; you want an output-based measure that, with good monitoring, can ensure there is compliance. We have the technology to produce that now and also selectivity in most fisheries, if the legal constraints are relaxed.

Q444 Neil Parish: Surely, out to six miles and between six and the 12-mile limit, we as a Government should be able to have much more flexibility. Haven’t we got that?

Philip MacMullen: To an extent, but there is still the issue of fairness. There is some nonUK access within six miles, and certainly six to 12 miles. We cannot impose those measures on non-UK fishermen at the moment, but there is a proposal within the reformed CFP that we should able to do that out to 12 miles.

Q445 Neil Parish: Even if those are conservation measures?

Philip MacMullen: I think that up to 12 miles we can apply it to our own UK citizens as a point of law. We can always apply more rigorous restrictions to our own fishermen than the regulations specify. The extent to which we can apply them to nonUK fishermen in the various regions would need clarification.

Q446 Chair: To turn to sustainability, we heard evidence from Iglo that it is a bit like animal welfare, for example buying pigs produced and reared to the highest animal welfare standards. People tend to buy on price. Is it the same for fish? Mr MacMullen, I think you alluded to the difficulties of pitching it to the end consumer. Are people going into shops and asking to have the most sustainable fish, or are they asking for the best value fish?

Adam Whittle: We engage with our attendees of our course. Certainly, we have asked them that question. In more affluent times it is easier to put sustainability and buying preference up the agenda. We have noticed in this time of austerity that for some demographics price is becoming much more important. Therefore, of price, quality, availability of different species and sustainability, issues to do with sustainability have fallen down that agenda; it ranks consistently third or fourth in the parameters for buying decisions. It tends to be the more affluent who have the luxury of making those sustainable choices.

Philip MacMullen: We have primary and secondary market research data, so stuff we commission ourselves and stuff we take from other suppliers. For the bulk of consumers-if you are looking at the As, Bs, Cs and Ds-sustainability does not rank very high. It often does in people’s opinion, but it tends not to in terms of buying behaviour. Consistently, it does in the As and Bs, but the bulk of the market does not recognise the importance of it. It is price, convenience, quality, and sustainability is generally fourth.

Adam Whittle: A lot of our consumers look to their suppliers, be it multiple retailers or independent retailers, to take care of that for them. They find the issue surrounding sustainability confusing. We would all agree that it is quite a big topic to get your head around. Members of the public making those quick buying decisions for their evening meal rather rely on their independent or multiple retailers to make those conscious decisions for them. For a lot of the big groups, it is still an important issue. When I talk to my colleagues in the catering industry and ask whether it is still important, they say that for larger groups it is still very much of importance in the buying decision process. The smaller pub chains and restaurants are letting the sustainability criteria fall down the agenda a little in preference to price, which is understandable in these times of austerity.

Q447 Neil Parish: Many supermarkets now have a fresh fish counter. Are the supermarkets doing enough to promote not only sustainable fish but different varieties of fish so we can broaden what we are eating?

Adam Whittle: In recent years most supermarkets have had a very robust sustainable policy. You have taken evidence from Waitrose, our largest commercial customer. They were one of the first to set up a very robust sustainable sourcing policy, and many other multiple groups are following suit. I called into Asda in St Leonards on the way here and had a chat with the fishmongers there to find out what they were up to. I was interested to hear that today they have moved away from the Marine Stewardship Council as a route. Obviously, it is one of the most highly regarded certification bodies for sustainability. We have started to engage with Asda, and I was trying to put in a little market research this morning as I was down here. To see them moving away from that I thought rather bucks the trend. Generally, I think they have very much bought into it, but whether that is going to be the case going forward I do not know. For Asda there is a change afoot as of today, so that is quite interesting.

Q448 Mrs Glindon: You have talked about people and the general public being confused about sustainability, but do you think they are also confused about the mixed message? They are told to eat fish because it is healthy, and the other message is that they should not eat fish because it is not sustainable. Is that another issue that confuses the situation?

Adam Whittle: Absolutely. It is very confusing. Again, they are looking for leadership from where they buy to give them the confidence they can buy with a clear conscience.

Q449 Amber Rudd: What you have said about Asda is disappointing. Presumably, its decision is to do with price. Sometimes we feel it is important to improve labelling so that the consumers and catering industry can confirm that what they are providing is labelled in a certain way, but if consumers really do not care, the markets will respond as you have said. Will you give your views on that? Will you also tell us whether you think the Common Fisheries Policy has any role in informing customers more about the sustainability of fish and the reasons for doing this?

Adam Whittle: I think the opportunity for the Common Fisheries Policy in supporting that is to reward sustainable fisheries. Our own particular emphasis is to celebrate sustainable fisheries, and, to counter that, to highlight the good things that are happening. I do not get out very much. We tend to invite industry champions to us and tell us some great news stories that we can really get behind and celebrate. From the point of view of the Common Fisheries Policy, the best way they could do that is to reward those fisheries that are efficiently using fuel resources, or taking technical measures, or typical Hastings-style fisheries, perhaps to allow them to catch more fish. That is a possible mechanism.

As to labelling, going into Asda today was an eye-opener. Their viewpoint was that to have Marine Stewardship Council labelling on some of their products was turning consumers away from other lines that did not have that particular brand, so missing an opportunity. That is something new to me. It was a bit of an eye-opener for me to hear that today. I was just speaking to the fishmonger on the counter rather than the Asda group fish buyer, so perhaps the views of that individual are not the most insightful to report to this Committee. However, it was an insight for me to learn they have moved away from that particular logo labelling.

Philip MacMullen: That is an interesting point. If you look at another multiple retailer, Waitrose do not use the MSC logo or use MSC as any sort of benchmark in terms of their marketing strategy, because they say that their own quality standards and decision trees are as robust as the MSC. The do not exclude the MSC fish; it is just that they do not use the logo but the Waitrose brand. That is probably quite an important distinction to make. It may be part of what Asda is doing.

I have worked with all the multiples in years past, helping them to develop their decision trees. We have always found it most fruitful to work on a business-to-business basis to make sure the supply chain is robust; that there is a sensible distinction between what we think of as being sustainable and what we think of as being responsible good practice, which you may wish to query in a minute; to make sure there is a good set of traceability standards in place in the supply chain; and that each part of the chain understands what those standards are. Ultimately, the vast majority of consumers trust the brand to deliver something in which they can have some sort of faith.

Q450 Chair: In the earlier session we touched on decentralisation. I think Seafish is broadly in favour of regionalisation. Are you concerned that the UK Government might impose stricter measures, particularly in its own waters, than might apply to other Member States?

Philip MacMullen: We are not in favour of regionalisation; as an NDPB, we could not be.

Q451 Chair: Decentralisation?

Philip MacMullen: Or decentralisation. It is fairly obvious from evidence around the world that more locally and sensitively managed fisheries work better; they deliver better, so as a principle it seems to work better on the basis of the evidence we have. I do not see that the proposition that a decentralised policy delivers autonomy to each Member State to act completely independently of all the rest makes any sense, except perhaps on a coastal scale. It has to be reflected, as the RACs have shown, in some sort of sea-based, ocean-based and ecosystem-based collaboration between Member States.

From seeing how RACs have worked quite well in the past and the proposed advisory committees-as they are to be renamed-are supposed to work in the future, it looks like a good bet to go with them as the arbiters of good management policy for each area. One reason I say that is that, having looked at the ways in which historically discard data have been collected by different countries, even within the UK by different Administrations, you often end up with data sets that are not mutually compatible. We must have some standardisation of the data collected on fish mortality for target and nontarget species, on commercial and non-commercial species and a whole range of other indicators to support things on a scale similar to the Marine Strategy Framework Directive so we are not duplicating our activity in collecting data. There has to be standardisation. Good standards have to be adopted, and it would probably be useful for the Commission to think carefully about whether Member States should have autonomy to develop their own systems, or whether they should be able to compare Member States one against the other.

Q452 Chair: We hear a lot from the Commission about the Johannesburg declaration on maximum sustainable yields by 2015. Do you think this is the right objective, and is it achievable?

Philip MacMullen: The Johannesburg declaration says "where possible". That is not yet in the Commission’s proposal, but it needs to be. At one end of the scale, some environmental groups are lobbying for it to be a legal requirement, but that presupposes that it is fishing only that has an impact on fish stocks, and of course it is not. The failure of Irish Sea cod stocks to recover is certainly to do with environmental conditions rather than overfishing. We have had overfishing in the past, which caused the problems, but failure to recover in many areas is not down to fishing pressure but changing environmental conditions.

Q453 Chair: We hear a lot about the waters becoming warmer and the impact on fish stocks, yet this does not seem to be reflected in the thinking of either the Government or the Commission. Is that something that should be looked at?

Adam Whittle: I can speak only from the experience of seeing different availability in local markets. I work at Billingsgate market and tread the floor on a daily basis, so I can see changing patterns of fish availability from year to year. It should definitely be taken into consideration. We are seeing Mediterranean species increasing and less availability of traditional colder water species. More warmer water species are coming on the market. That is the insight I can give you, and it would be sensible if that was included.

Q454 Amber Rudd: Mr MacMullen, to go back to an earlier response, the position of the CFP reforming group is that we are looking at overfishing and this needs to be addressed as part of the targets for MSY. Do you concur with that?

Philip MacMullen: We have to be careful in using the word "overfishing". You can have a sustainably managed stock that from time to time is subject to overfishing, because you cannot always adjust fishing effort as stocks fluctuate. Overfishing, or overcapacity, has to be addressed in order to deliver MSY. Whether there should be a harder target by 2015 or we should reflect the Johannesburg commitment of "where possible" looking at the direction of travel and expectations of delivery by certain times, but understanding where it cannot be delivered, may be a moot point.

Q455 Neil Parish: We have learnt a lot today. From taking a lot of evidence, we have learnt that there are various species, some of which will survive when discarded. Therefore, there is an argument that we do not ban discards on every species. There are, however, a number of species that do not survive, and in a mixed fishery you will catch them. How do we deal with that? How do we market those when we land them? I do not think the public will ever accept the discarding of fish that will die and possibly putrefy the seabed. We have talked about gear and how we try to eliminate as many discards as we can. I think we all agree with that, but in the end fish that will not survive if discarded will be brought on board boats. How do we bring that ashore, especially if perhaps you do not have quota for it?

Philip MacMullen: It is impossible to eliminate discarding in my view. This is borne out by my experience of selectivity studies. If you did find a way of eliminating all non-target fish, you would be losing so many marketable fish that you would not be able to make a living. It is an extreme position. Assuming you have some nontarget or non-marketable fish being brought aboard, information needs to be made available about what is more or less likely to survive. That could depend not just on species but the way it has been caught: the length of tow; the way it has been handled; the depth of water, and so on. As we mentioned in our submission to the Committee, there is also the question of whether you should necessarily be removing a large amount of biomass and productivity from the marine ecosystem and taking it ashore. That may or may not be a good thing.

Given that the Commission is prescribing certain species that would have to be brought ashore in stages by groups, first those groups are too general. The previous STCF work we did showed there was so much variability between apparently similar fisheries in terms of the amount of discards and the type of fishing methods that some would be quite intractable. We cannot generalise as between those groups, as the Commission seems to want to do at the moment. Therefore, the scheduling may be a little flaky as well. But if you do bring those fish ashore, you have several options. The worst option is landfill, because it costs a lot of money; the next worst is fish meal, because you get only 5% of the potential commercial value of those species; and the other routes are commercialisation of some kind, at which we have looked, but you need to bridge the present market disconnect. You have to ensure that fish are kept at good quality, as you do for fish meal use, and we have to find some way of increasing uptake of those less desired species.

One thing you are very unlikely to be able to do is get processors to be interested in them because of the variable quantities and the body forms. You cannot have mechanised processing with all those different species of fish and the different sizes you are likely to get, so it will almost certainly be local use, preferably food service use.

Q456 Neil Parish: We have heard from fishermen today that fish are being discarded and it is creating many more starfish and the like, so we have to do something about it. We can perhaps accept the idea that you do not want a total ban on discards, but I do not think we agree that nothing will be done about discards because, whether the public are right or wrong, they see this waste of fish and do not like it.

Philip MacMullen: I would not suggest that we take no action against discarding; we must. We have been working as scientists and technologists to address the problem for many years, but the legislative, social and economic framework has not been conducive to introducing different technology to try to achieve that. We need to set targets. I suggest they should be soft targets. From advice I have taken from people at the World Bank and elsewhere who are fisheries experts, they would recommend adopting a slightly longer horizon and that we should be targeting 0% discarding of these species by that time. If you cannot, there has to be a convincing argument. There are often quite legitimate technical reasons why you cannot achieve certain targets.

Discarding is an important issue, partly because of public outrage, partly because of the waste of resources but, more importantly, because we do not count discards properly; we do not count the number of fish we kill. Unless we can achieve a quantification of the impacts, we cannot manage our resources properly. Therefore, we must at the very minimum count discarding and make sure we have that handle on it, and then see what best we can do about it.

Q457 Amber Rudd: One of the species we are very keen to protect from discards is fishermen. Do you have a view-you heard the earlier debate-about transferable fishing concessions and whether they could, despite what you have heard, help the small-boat fishermen?

Philip MacMullen: From the research we have undertaken and what has happened in other parts of the world, it seems inevitable that, given what science advice has been translated into management measures and TACs-we may take a different view on that; I cannot say at the moment-we have overcapacity in terms of available TACs. There may be a lot more fish out there; I cannot comment on that, but, given the available TACs, we have overcapacity. What has happened in virtually every other country where fixed rights have been introduced is that there has been significant consolidation of ownership and fishing activity. It seems that the implication of introducing these measures is generally that you will have a smaller number of boats and fishermen. You will have greater economic efficiency but not as many boats and fishermen. It tends to happen. Especially given the current quota arrangements, boats would inevitably go to the wall based on what we know.

Q458 Chair: Mr Whittle, is there anything you would like to share with us from your recent survey?

Adam Whittle: I alluded to that earlier in the discussion to highlight the consumer’s decision in the buying process. In recent months sustainability has fallen down that agenda somewhat.

Q459 Chair: In terms of public procurement, is there a role for Government in trying to encourage local consumption and procurement?

Adam Whittle: I would like to think so.

Q460 Chair: What would you like to see?

Adam Whittle: I would love to see more of what is happening with Bill. When speaking to the public, it is very hard for me to tell people how much fish caught in UK waters is going across to the continent. It would be lovely to see more UK fish being enjoyed by UK consumers. I think that really depends on education. To be honest, I do not have an answer as to how Government could help, but, to start with, making sure we still have some fishermen would be really helpful.

Q461 Chair: We met some Danish fishermen last week and had a look at a herring filleting factory. I was amazed that all the local consumption was imported and the locally produced fish was exported. We would like to thank you very much indeed for participating in our inquiry, and we would like to keep the lines of communication open with you. Perhaps we can speak to you informally now.

Philip MacMullen: By all means. If you want to address any specific questions to Hazel Curtis, she chairs the European Association of Fisheries Economists and works a lot with MEPs at the moment on the CFP reforms.

Chair: You are very kind. Thank you very much for participating in our inquiry.