TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 1998

MR STEPHEN WENTWORTH, MR ANDREW KUYK, MR IAN GORDON AND DR JOSEPH HORWOOD

  1. Mr Wentworth and colleagues, welcome to the first session of our inquiry into sea fishing. I ask you to begin by introducing yourself and your colleagues for the record.
  (Mr Wentworth) I am Stephen Wentworth, Fisheries Secretary in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. On my left is Dr Joseph Horwood, Deputy to the Chief Executive at CEFAS (the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science), which is the main fisheries research and science agency in England. On my immediate right is Mr Ian Gordon, Fisheries Secretary in the Scottish Office, and on my far right is Mr Andrew Kuyk, head of one of the divisions in MAFF that deals with structures and markets in the fisheries sector.

  2. We are grateful to you for your memorandum which is characteristically informative. This will be our major inquiry this year. We shall be taking a good deal of evidence in the new year and making visits around the UK with a view to reporting some time before the summer. We are concentrating a number of specific areas: the overall prospects for the industry, research, restructuring, the effectiveness of regulations and so on. Perhaps initially I may put some general questions about the industry. I invite you to give us your views on the current economic situation of the sea fishing industry and its prospects?
  (Mr Wentworth) That is a very broad question. The fishing industry is a very complex one. I am interested to hear that you are to make visits. One of the things it will bring out is that the structure and activities of the fishing industry vary widely around the coast. The fish stocks, fishing activity and the vessels all vary greatly. Whatever brief global description may be given of what is going on in terms of the state of the industry, there will be some individual fishermen or fishing communities who say that it is quite different for them. I now make one or two comments with hesitations and reservations of that kind. But it is useful to have some very broad figures. I hope that that is what you are looking for. If one looks back over the fishing industry since the early 1990s one finds that the total landings of fish by the UK fleet has generally been fairly steady or rising. In 1990 the total landings were 763,000 tonnes; in 1997 they had reached 891,000 tonnes.

  3. I take it that those are legal landings?
  (Mr Wentworth) I am quoting the statistics that we collect from the fishing industry. I do not believe that it is possible to make meaningful estimates of activities of the fishing industry that are not declared to us. To the extent that there are other landings, the income from fish may be higher. That may be something on which the Committee wants to reflect. I move on to the value of landings which has fluctuated. However, in most years it has been rising. In 1990 the value of landings was £472 million which by 1997 had reached £622 million. One can express those figures in real terms by applying an RPI deflator. One can always argue about what is the right deflator to apply in any particular circumstances, but the RPI deflator is the normal one in the absence of anything obviously better. In applying that deflator one finds that the rise in value is smaller but it is still positive over the period. The value in 1990 was £590 million in real terms and in 1997 the actual figure for the purposes of comparison was £622 million. Over the same period there are some encouraging trends. A decommissioning scheme and other factors affecting the fleet structure have taken place. They have resulted in a reduction in the fleet in absolute numbers and in tonnage. That factor causes the value of the catch per vessel tonne to go up. Over a slightly different period—I shall not try to explain why it must be considered over a slightly different period—since 1992 the average rise in the value of catch per vessel tonne has been going up by about 5 per cent a year in real terms. There is also quite an encouraging trend there as well. Thus, although we have a smaller fleet it is catching more and in an economic sense it is operating more efficiently. The trends in the fleet are also reflected in the growing demand for vessel licences and quotas. Vessel licences are controlled under a system whereby there is a cap on the number issued, and quotas are part of our fisheries management arrangements. It is evident that the prices that vessel owners are prepared to pay for the fishing opportunities reflected by licences and quotas are rising. I am frequently told that that is unwelcome to those who want to enter the fishing industry because the investment required to start is higher because of it. But one must also draw the economic conclusion that at least for some in the industry the profitability of fishing is such that it supports these high values and justifies the increasing value of fishing licences.

  4. In your judgment which sectors of the industry and which geographical areas of the country are doing best?
  (Mr Wentworth) Evidently, the most profitable areas—one deduces this from the response to the decommissioning scheme—are the pelagic and beam trawl sectors. In those sectors vessel owners have been very little interested in decommissioning. The locality of these fleets and the areas in which they benefit are not necessarily simple to define. Fleets can move and operate from different ports. If one goes to ports on the east cost of England one will find some gloom about the scale of activity but nonetheless they are home to some fairly profitable beam trawl vessels. On the whole, the pelagic fleet is located in Scotland.
  (Mr Gordon) We do not have reliable figures for the profitability or returns for particular parts of the fleet or parts of the industry. There are indicators which give one an idea of what is happening. Clearly, the response to the decommissioning scheme is one relevant indicator to show where profits are being made and reinvested in the industry; the levels of new investment is another.

  5. If you as experts had to put your money where your mouth was and invest in some aspect of the fishing industry where would you most want to invest or least invest at present?
  (Mr Wentworth) I hesitate to answer that question.

  6. Putting it neutrally, which sectors do you believe will expand and which do you believe face the greatest challenges over the next few years?
  (Mr Wentworth) With respect, that is a very different question that I shall try to answer. The scope for expansion and development is very much dictated by both the Community's structural policy—the Multi-Annual Guidance Programme—and the constraints that that can apply to fishing activity and the realities of fish stocks which no doubt will loom very large in your inquiry later on. One very important theme to take into account is that the prospects in any one sector if one focuses fairly narrowly can look very good for a year or two. Then, for environmental or other reasons, fish stocks that had been there may disappear. What was a very lucrative sector becomes much less attractive. To revert to your original question, if one were looking for short-term profitability one would perhaps be looking for rather narrow market segments. Perhaps one discovers that a particular type of shellfish is extremely popular in Japan and no one else has spotted it, in which case one will take advantage of it. When talking to fisherman one finds that apart from the big sectors, of which the pelagic is an example—it may be described as a bulk commodity given the large quantities and hopefully big markets—there are a lot of micro-markets for very specific products. Those are very attractive to rather different kinds of fishermen. In the pelagic market one sees quite sharp changes in the prices that can be obtained over a short period. The situation in the countries of the former Soviet Union and the general economic situation has had a significant effect on the prices in the pelagic sector. One can also point to sharp changes in some pelagic stocks which in the short term can make for differences.

  7. You will know that vessels can land fish in any country. In your figures for quoted landings what account have you taken of landings by Scottish pelagic vessels in Norway and the Continent, or vessels in the south west that land hake in Spain where the market is better than in the UK because of national taste? What about Icelandic vessels landing fish in east coast ports, fish being trucked into the United Kingdom from overseas or Russian vessels which, when that fleet was capable of floating, delivered large amounts of pelagic fish to processing plants in the United Kingdom? Do the quantities that you quote reflect the overseas landings in the UK which may not have come out of UK quotas or the landings that British vessels make on the Continent? Leaving aside black fish, how confident are you that you know what has been landed in the United Kingdom?
  (Mr Wentworth) The figures that I have quoted are total landings by the UK fleet wherever they land. If it is helpful I can provide a note as to exactly within that how account is taken of trans-shipment and so on. I do not think that you want to get into too much detail here and now, but the figures that I have quoted do not take account of landings by non-UK vessels into the UK. They take into account landings by UK vessels outside the UK.

  8. Are you happy that the statistics given to you by UK vessels of their landings in foreign ports are accurate?
  (Mr Wentworth) They have to complete logbooks. In principle, we use the same data for landings abroad as for the UK. There is always a question as to whether people are cheating. But I do not argue that the quantities are inevitably wrong because they are from landings abroad or much more accurate because they are landings in the UK.

  9. But the landings in the UK are inspected by your officers whereas landings in foreign ports are not?
  (Mr Wentworth) They are not inspected by our inspectorate in foreign ports.

  10. Or any inspectorate in some ports?
  (Mr Wentworth) It depends on the port and the time of landing. This is one of the matters that we have sought to deal with across the Community in the context of the regulation that has recently been before the Council.

  11. A frequent complaint by the fishing industry is that fishing gets the half-attention or less of MAFF, in the sense that it is usually handled by a junior Minister who does not have a great deal of political punch and officials who move in and out as the main interest of the department lies elsewhere. Is that criticism justified?
  (Mr Wentworth) I do not think that it is for me to comment on the arrangements at ministerial level, although my impression is that the fishing industry has had a very good relationship with successive fisheries Ministers who have devoted a lot of time to the industry. As far as officials are concerned, I have been Fisheries Secretary for five years. I do not know whether you regard that as long enough—some may regard it as too long. Dr Horwood, who is a key figure in advising me and my colleagues and Ministers on fisheries science, has a much more impressive track record. He has been at Lowestoft for more years than perhaps he cares to remember. Mr Kuyk is a relative newcomer.
  (Mr Kuyk) I have four years' experience.
  (Mr Gordon) I also have five years' experience.

  Chairman: That stability is probably above the average for the Civil Service as a whole.

  12. There is relative stability. You say that the objective of the department is sustainable management of fisheries. Is that objective achievable particularly by the UK Government given the foreign catches in our waters?
  (Mr Wentworth) It is fair comment that we are fishing in waters where the stocks are fished by a good many other fishermen from other Member States in the European Community and, in some waters, by Norway, Iceland and others. There are a good many fishermen and countries with an interest in the stocks that are important to us, and `twas ever thus. Historically, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES)—the scientific body that advises a good deal of our activities—was established by treaty in 1902 in recognition of the international nature of fisheries. Each country who participates has some kind of obligation to seek to manage its own affairs in a way that ensures that the various fisheries are maintained in a sustainable manner. A lot of effort goes into it. In the view of the Government it is inevitable that the running of the fisheries is a major international affair and is of prime interest to them. The machinery for doing that since we joined the Community has been the Common Fisheries Policy. That background is very important in the context of the question you ask; namely, the interest of the UK in all this. The UK has a direct role in managing its own fishing fleet and policing its activities. It also has a significant role in policing the activities of the vessels of other Member States who fish in our waters out to 200 miles and land fish at UK ports. The structure and development of the Common Fisheries Policy is something that we influence significantly. That helps to preserve the very same stocks. It is perhaps of interest to quote two examples of stocks that illustrate the co-operative approach that is absolutely crucial. One is a stock known as western mackerel which moves around from the Bay of Biscay to the waters north of Shetland across the North Sea. One cannot sensibly manage that stock just in terms of the UK; it must be an international effort. Another striking example is the stock of plaice in the North Sea where to a considerable extent the fish congregate as juveniles along the Dutch, German and Danish coasts. One of the features of the Common Fisheries Policy is its limitation on fishing in the area where juvenile plaice congregate—the so-called plaice box. It conjures up the wrong image because it sounds as if it is square or rectangular whereas it wraps itself all along those coastal areas and provides protection for juvenile plaice outside UK waters. They are the plaice that our fishermen catch as they grow bigger. Without international co-operation through the CFP we would not have the same opportunity to influence management of this stock.

  13. That is true. The problem is that it was not ever thus, and it has not been thus since 1976 when 200-mile limits were set by people to try to achieve stability in their own waters. We cannot do that. The question therefore is: can we achieve relative stability given the fact that we do not know and cannot police the landings by foreign and British vessels in European ports?
  (Mr Wentworth) As to enforcement of fish landings in other Member States, perhaps we can say more when we come to discuss the new regulation.

  14. We can discuss it later. The general point is whether we can have relative stability when there is a hole in the bottom of the bucket?
  (Mr Wentworth) In various areas there may be imperfections—holes, as it were—in the system. I do not claim that it is a one-sided situation. All Member State have methods of enforcing fisheries regulations and checking on landings. There are different priorities and arrangements for various reasons. I do not accept that there is no enforcement of landings in other Member States. In that sense I think that there is a system across the Community which is all working in the same direction and seeks to achieve the same management objectives. There is a legal structure that gives the European Commission a role in checking on what Member States are doing and applies pressure on them in one way or another if it feels that what they are doing is inadequate.

  15. To what extent can the UK act independently of the EU or other Member States in fisheries management? There is a strong demand from the fishermen's organisations for coastal state management. Is that a practical policy?
  (Mr Wentworth) Before I answer the final part of the question I should point out that there is a huge amount already delegated to Member States within the Common Fisheries Policy. Quota management, fleet structure management and enforcement activities are all delegated to the Member States. We decide how we manage our quotas and comply with the MAGP targets. We operate our own enforcement operation. The fact that we can decide to implement the so-called fixed quotas allocations is an example of something that we are doing nationally. The decision to introduce a system of designated ports is another national decision. There is a great deal that is nationally decided and managed within the framework of the Common Fisheries Policy. We also have a lot of freedom to manage fisheries locally within the six-mile limit. In England and Wales there are sea fisheries committees. There are other arrangements in Scotland. We have a good deal of freedom in that respect. We are also able to introduce technical measures to protect fisheries. For example, as a national measure we decided that our fishing vessels should use the so-called square mesh panels in certain fisheries. It was not at that time applied to vessels of other Member States that fished in the same waters, but we and the fishing industry felt that it was worthwhile. The purpose of the square mesh panels is to improve selectivity which is helpful to fishermen. By demonstrating and operating this system for some time square mesh panels have now been written into Community regulations which will apply to everyone.

  16. To return to the second part of my question, the aim of the fishermen's organisations is to get a greater degree of coastal state management; in other words, to have greater delegation of powers to coastal states. Is that something that MAFF also wants?
  (Mr Wentworth) Our view is that fisheries management needs to be brought closer to fishermen. There are two broad dimensions to that. One is that fishermen need to have greater confidence that the practical, real circumstances of fishing as they perceive them are being understood by fisheries managers and scientists. There is also a need to ensure that that confidence is well placed and that local evidence of what is going on, in addition to the scientific evidence which is often of a broader kind, is brought together properly in the decision-making process. We have already moved some way in that respect. The European Commission has set up what it calls regional meetings which bring together fishermen and fisheries managers to discuss particular stocks, for example plaice in the North Sea. There have also been quite a few meetings between fisheries scientists and fishermen as the former make their forecasts. Whether one can move to a situation in which decision-making is devolved may be more difficult. In the end one must ensure that local decisions fit into the overall picture. If one takes action in one area it may perhaps reduce fishing opportunities there and so all the fishermen may move to another area. Practical considerations need to be looked at as one sees what it is possible to do locally.

  17. Our enforcement is better than that of many other EU fisheries administrations. The fishermen want it. Are you telling us that to have greater coastal state control would be a nuisance?
  (Mr Wentworth) I am saying that we are part of a bigger management operation. I gave the example of plaice. If we started to take action regarding the management of North Sea plaice stocks it would have significant implications for fishermen across the whole of the North Sea. Equally, if the countries I mentioned who apply the plaice box thought that it was in their local interest to abandon that it would be very bad news for us. One must look rather carefully at what is meaningful and sensible in terms of developing local management.

  18. I ask you to reflect on the regime that existed before the CFP. I want to take a comparative approach and see what difference the CFP has made to the British stance in the management of fisheries. Very briefly, what was there before, if anything? Was it left to market forces in the fishing industry?
  (Mr Wentworth) Certainly, there was not a golden age when everything was wonderful. Before the CFP was fully developed with the introduction of the main regulations in 1983 one had the classic historical case of the collapse of the herring stock in the North Sea. Prior to the Community a number of international organisations sought to operate management. Their fishery limits were extended in successive waves in the 1970s. I believe that fisheries enforcement was very much less substantial. The picture was of relatively much less control.

  19. Therefore, by and large the fishing industry survived on the basis that sometimes it fished out particular species, went bust, there was investment in fishing another species instead and the one that disappeared revived and so on? As a result, one had a cyclical industry that focused on particular technologies and species. Presumably, the objective of the CFP has been to attempt to smooth out the bumps of the natural environment with the use of technology to catch particular fish?
  (Mr Wentworth) Before answering that question perhaps I should ask Dr Horwood to deal with the first part.