Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee
Oral evidence: Fisheries negotiations, HC 1032
Tuesday 17 January 2023
Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 17 January 2023.
Members present: Mrs Sheryl Murray (Chair); Ian Byrne; Barry Gardiner; Dr Neil Hudson; Julian Sturdy; Derek Thomas.
Questions 1 - 83
Witnesses
I: Rt Hon. Mark Spencer MP, Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries, Defra; Mike Dowell, Deputy Director for EU Fisheries Negotiations and Policy, Defra; Colin Faulkner, Deputy Director for External Fisheries Negotiations, Defra.
Witnesses: Rt Hon. Mark Spencer MP, Mike Dowell and Colin Faulkner.
Q1 Chair: Welcome, Minister, and welcome, Mr Faulkner and Mr Dowell, to this session on the annual fisheries negotiations. Before we start with our questions, I understand that you would like to give the Committee a short presentation on the outcome of the negotiations.
Mark Spencer: Yes. I hope you have those slides.
Q2 Chair: Yes, we do, so would you like to take us through it? Take about 10 minutes, Minister, please.
Mark Spencer: Yes, I will be as quick as I can. I am conscious that there is a great deal of expertise on the Committee. That might not be the case for everybody at home who is watching, so forgive me if some of this is more basic than the Committee’s level of understanding, but it is worth just setting out.
We have left the EU. We used to abdicate the responsibility for fishing negotiations to the EU on our behalf. We are now an independent state, which means that we need to talk to our neighbours to establish what fish we can go and harvest from our seas and oceans. They take part in many different forms.
We have to negotiate with the EU, which is our biggest trading partner and one of our biggest neighbours. We also have to negotiate with the Norwegians; we share the North Sea with them. We have to negotiate with the EU and the Norwegians, so there are two sets of bilateral negotiations—one UK-EU and one UK-Norway—and one with the three of us, where we try to get together to sort that out.
Of course, there are also our obligations to talk to our other neighbours, which I will come to a bit later. We also have to talk to the Faroe Islands, Iceland and Greenland, and the Russians have some involvement there as well. They are the three main levels.
It is also worth pointing out that we try to follow scientific advice wherever possible, because we want a sustainable ocean and sustainable stock levels of fish. It is not just a negotiation to try to get as much as we possibly can. It is about working with our closest neighbours to make sure that there are fish there for the long term. It is not just about getting as much maximum tonnage as possible; it is about making sure that we do that in a sustainable way.
Let us turn first of all to our negotiations directly with the EU. We just concluded those negotiations on 20 December. I am delighted to say that we have seen an uplift of 30,000 tonnes of quota. That takes us to 140,000 tonnes across 69 different stocks. That is worth approximately £282 million, so it is big business and is important to the UK from an economic point of view. It has also provided the UK with an extra £25 million-worth of value of stock compared to when we were a member state.
The key outcomes of that negotiation were that the total allowable catches that we have managed to negotiate have seen an increase in sustainability. The number of stocks for which we have been able to follow directly ICES’ advice has increased, which is good news for the long-term sustainability of the industry and something that we were very keen to try to achieve during those negotiations, as well as getting the maximum amount of numbers. It has also seen some new species become available, like spurdog, which is quite important in our waters. Those are the EU negotiations.
We then move to the trilateral negotiations, which are the ones between us, the EU and Norway. Traditionally, the EU would co-ordinate those negotiations with Norway on our behalf when we were a member state. Now we are an independent coastal state, we have a seat at that table, which is quite important.
It is also worth noting that we have agreed to set catch levels in line with or lower than those advised by ICES. We are also going to share data and work together, so we have very constructive relationships with our near neighbours.
You will see from the slide that there are a number of those stocks that have gone up quite dramatically compared to 2022. Cod and haddock have gone up. Herring has gone down slightly, but plaice, saithe and whiting have all gone up. Again, there are lots of opportunities from those negotiations not only for UK fishermen but also for Norwegian and EU boats as well, which is good news for us all.
Separately, we just talked to the Norwegians to try to set out how we are going to work with our friends in Norway. They are one of our closest neighbours and a very important trading nation. We began negotiations with them in October. We signed a deal on 25 November, so we were able to conclude those negotiations quite rapidly, which is an indication of the good working relationship that we have with our Norwegian friends.
We have swapped some quotas from Norway of valuable North Sea and Arctic whitefish stocks. We have also negotiated some anglerfish quota with them, which people might know as monkfish, which is a very important stock to UK fishermen. We have also allowed Norwegian fishermen to come and fish in our waters, and UK fishermen to go and fish in Norwegian waters, which works very well for us and for them.
The coastal state pelagic negotiations are the biggest table and include the UK, the EU, Norway, Iceland, the Faroes, Greenland and Russia. We have to discuss with our neighbours how we proceed. We are aiming for March 2023 to be able to conclude those discussions, but we are hoping to set those stocks in line with scientific advice for 2023 overall. We have secured about 325,000 tonnes of quota, worth £256 million, in those negotiations, so good news there again for the UK.
I can talk about regional fisheries management organisations, where, for the first time, we are now a member state in our own right, but it is probably time to open it up to questions from the Committee.
Chair: Thank you very much for that; it was very concise and very useful. I am sure people can understand what you were saying, Minister, and thank you very much.
Q3 Barry Gardiner: Just arising out of your presentation, Minister, you have said in the presentation, “New cautious fishery for spurdog, now the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea has advised a TAC”, which is a total allowable catch. I am reading from the ICES report. “Several species have been depleted by fishing in the past and are now on the OSPAR list of threatened and declining species, including spurdog (Squalus acanthias)”. It then goes on to list some others. “Although there are zero TACs, spatial restrictions and prohibited listings for these species, several of them remain vulnerable to existing fisheries”. I do not understand the discrepancy between what you have stated ICES is saying and what I am reading in its report from 15 December.
Mark Spencer: There is a global picture and a localised picture. We are blessed with more spurdog in the Celtic Sea, that bit between Ireland and England.
Q4 Barry Gardiner: This is saying zero TACs, and you have said that a TAC has been advised.
Mike Dowell: ICES has advised that there is a total allowable catch for spurdog for 2023 and 2024.
Chair: The EU, as I understand it, has already opened the fishery and we are looking to introduce legislation ourselves. Am I correct?
Q5 Barry Gardiner: Can you write to us and explain why its report on the Celtic Seas ecoregion, published on 15 December, is saying that there are zero TACs? You are saying that there is a TAC. In its report, it is saying that there is zero TAC.
Mark Spencer: We can certainly respond to you and put that out in writing.
Chair: That would be helpful.
Mark Spencer: It is worth pointing out that we are not talking about huge numbers here. It is a tentative dip into that marketplace at a sustainable level.
Q6 Barry Gardiner: OSPAR says that it is a threatened species.
Mark Spencer: The numbers are going up. That is the good news.
Barry Gardiner: “Threatened and declining species” is what it says.
Q7 Chair: Minister, are you hearing from the fishermen on the ground that they are seeing an increase in spurdog?
Mark Spencer: Yes. Occasionally, you happen to catch these things when you are trying to harvest other species of fish, so we are seeing increased numbers of bycatch of spurdog in nets.
Q8 Chair: If you had a zero TAC, they would have to be discarded, which pollutes the seabed and does not really do anything for conservation.
Mark Spencer: That is a huge challenge in the fishing industry, of course, because you cast your net, you do not always know what you are going to get and, occasionally, you catch things that you do not want to catch.
Q9 Chair: Quota levels are up compared to 2022 by about 20,000 tonnes under the EU-Norway-UK deal, nearly 50,000 tonnes, as you have said, under the deal with the north-east Atlantic coastal states, and slightly up under the UK-EU deal. What is the outlook for the UK fishing sector this year as a result of that? Sometimes you can take a global figure—so a whole-of-UK figure—but it has disproportionate effects on different areas, including area 7, the North Sea and area 6. What is the outcome for the UK fleet as a whole?
Mark Spencer: It would be very easy to sit here and say that it is very rosy and it is brilliant, as those figures would indicate, but that depends on where you are in the UK and the stock that you are trying to catch. It is a mixed picture. It is good news for some and more challenging for others. It is worth setting out that it is against a background of some fairly challenging times, with energy costs going up, fuel costs going up, and access to labour quite a challenge. To sit here and say, “Yes, it is brilliant news” would be an overestimation and an oversimplification of the situation. It is challenging in some places but, overall, it is positive, although we recognise the challenges that individual fishing fleets and individual species are under.
Q10 Chair: Before I continue, I should declare a couple of interests. I am the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on fisheries, and also the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on the Channel Islands. With that in mind, could you perhaps give us an indication of the winners and losers of the UK sectors in these arrangements? You mentioned flatfish, and we did not do as well with that. Which parts of the UK are winners and which parts are losers?
Mark Spencer: Again, it is quite difficult to identify that, because lots of people will be feeling those pressures. Overall, we are winning as a nation, so that is something to be grateful for, but, as you identify, these things are always a trade-off. There are always going to be those challenges. If one stock level goes up, it does not mean to say that all stock levels are going up, so there are always those trade-offs that take place.
I do not want to sit here and be too celebratory, because I am very aware that lots of those communities are facing quite a challenge. I see it as our job in government to try to go and get as much of that quota as is sustainable, and to try to help and support those fishing communities to go and harvest those sustainable stocks at that level.
Q11 Chair: Of the £750 million of fishing opportunities available this year, does Defra expect a full quota uptake by the UK fleet and for it to fully exploit them?
Mark Spencer: We do not really measure that. That is a commercial decision for individual fishermen. They have that stock available. They will make commercial decisions. That is very dependent upon lots of things, including how challenging the weather is. They choose whether to go out and, frankly, the economic reward for making that decision. If the value of a stock goes down dramatically in the marketplace, they may well make a commercial decision that it is not worth going out and casting their net to catch that individual species.
We respect their right to make those commercial decisions, but we want to deliver as many opportunities as we can, which is what we have sought to do. I have dodged the question, but we do not really measure, if you like, the uptake. We are more interested in the opportunities. Some people may choose to carry some of that quota over to next year for commercial reasons.
Q12 Chair: But you do collect the data, so you would have a record of what the trend has been.
Mark Spencer: Yes, eventually. It takes time to filter through the system, because we have our own data. We know what UK fishermen are landing. We do not necessarily know what EU boats or Norwegian boats are landing until they present those figures to ICES and it all comes together in one pot. That is often a bit further down the track, maybe into the second quarter of the year.
Q13 Chair: You said that the UK had around 30,000 tonnes more quota now than had it remained a member of the EU. As a result of the quota share uplifts, is the trade deal the only factor or are there other considerations such as better stock levels? I cite, for instance, the cod recovery programme in the North Sea. Do they come into play as well?
Mark Spencer: The 30,000 figure is solely a result of the agreement to leave the EU. That does not take into account any lift in quotas because of numbers and stocks rising. That 30,000 figure is solely down to us leaving the EU.
Q14 Ian Byrne: I just want to tease a couple of points out for the record, Minister. What were the main trade-offs that you had to make during negotiation processes? When do you expect to publish the economic and sustainability assessments of the agreement you made?
Mark Spencer: On the second bit, the answer is, “Soon”. We have to gather all that data together.
Q15 Ian Byrne: We want a bit more than “soon”.
Mark Spencer: Let me use the word “spring” then. How is that? It is important to get that data right, is it not?
Q16 Barry Gardiner: It was October last year.
Mark Spencer: You will find that there are daffodils in the shops in October. Clearly, we want to get that as soon as possible. There are always trade-offs in these negotiations. What I do not want to do is reveal our negotiating hand, because that would be silly, but we are always considering those trade-offs. We are always looking at trying to get the best deal for the UK, but in a way that is fair to our neighbours. We have no interest in damaging Norwegian or EU fishing fleets. We are one community, but we want to try to get a fair deal for the UK.
Our relationship with Norway and with the EU is very constructive and positive. We want to be good neighbours. They want to be good neighbours. Of course, that brings challenges. I have mentioned monkfish and anglerfish already. The data on that was very challenging. We have seen pressure on that species, and so we have had to reduce that quota. We were able to talk to our Norwegian friends and squeeze a bit more anglerfish out of them with that bilateral, which is, again, good news for the UK fishing industry, where monkfish is a very valuable stock.
Q17 Ian Byrne: That is quite a positive answer. If we talk about the devolved Administrations, can you set out how you worked with them to distribute the quota around the country? Did some areas and coastlines win more than others compared to 2022?
Mark Spencer: There is a formula that is set out. When we left the EU, there is a prescriptive formula that sets out the total allowable catches from that moment. Then there is the extra quota, which is allocated when a stock is seen to be rising and we can go and harvest more of that stock from the fish. That comes down to negotiations within the devolved Administrations.
Q18 Ian Byrne: Are they working closely? Are they good relationships?
Mark Spencer: Yes, we have really good working relationships.
Ian Byrne: Colin is nodding away.
Mark Spencer: I am confident enough to say that we have very good working relationships with those devolved Administrations. They send people as part of the negotiating panel. I am conscious that I am doing all the talking. These two gents are part of that panel and maybe they wanted to say how they fell it works, because they are working very closely with colleagues from devolved Administrations.
Colin Faulkner: Yes, I am very happy to. We work across all those different negotiating forums. The devolved Administration officials are fully embedded within the UK negotiating team. We work together very closely to agree mandates that are acceptable to all Administrations before we go to negotiations. The UK Minister has the final say, effectively, given that international negotiations are a reserved function, but we work very closely with our colleagues across the devolved Administrations. It is not in our interests internationally to look divided in front of our negotiating partners. They are a key part of the team and bring really strong expertise to the table.
Q19 Chair: Before I go to Dr Hudson, you mentioned specifically securing some extra quota from Norway with regard to anglerfish, or monkfish. How would that compensate, say, a fisherman in the south-west? They would not necessarily have the ability to catch the fish that you got from Norway, would they?
Mark Spencer: No. Again, these things are always a trade-off, and we try to approach these in as mature a way as possible to try to make sure we are getting the best deal for the UK as a whole. That is a very fine balance. My experience is that, whatever you do, you are going to be criticised. You are never going to please everybody, but that is part of the joy of being a Defra Minister. To be honest, you have to make some of these challenging decisions. Right or wrong, you have to make a decision that you think is best.
We are never going to be able to please everybody, but what I would say is that the fishermen who I meet want a sustainable fishing industry. They want to be able to fish in 10 or 20 years’ time. They want their family to continue in that trade. They understand those trade-offs, albeit they are sometimes very difficult and financially challenging at this moment in time, but they also want a sustainable fishing industry.
Q20 Dr Hudson: Before I go into my main question, Minister, can I just take you back to your presentation? You talked about some of the wider negotiations—the coastal state pelagic negotiations—and you mentioned Russia. In the wake of their illegal, barbaric and devastating invasion of Ukraine, is Russia still in the room? Are we still talking to them? What is the situation there?
Mark Spencer: The direct answer is no, but that is not the case for all of our coastal friends and neighbours. They still talk to the Russians. There is a small area of the North Sea that we share with the Faroe Islands, which is referred to as a special territory, where there is what we will call an international disagreement as to where the border of UK waters get to and where the border of Faroese waters get to. It is a sliver of the North Sea that the Faroese have granted licences to the Russians to come and fish in. I will pass to Colin before I start an international incident.
Q21 Dr Hudson: So we and the bulk of our European partners are not talking to Russia. Are we aware of where the Russian fleet is and that side of things?
Mark Spencer: Yes is the direct answer to that. We are aware of where they go fishing. I do not think that we want to be seen to be having direct conversations with the Russians, given their barbaric actions in Ukraine, but they are a fact of life and they exist.
Dr Hudson: Thank you for clarifying that to the Committee. It is helpful to get that.
Mark Spencer: I do not know, Colin, whether you want to add anything.
Colin Faulkner: In terms of the coastal state negotiations, the Russians were not invited to attend them this year, unlike previous years. However, some north-east Atlantic countries have continued to have bilateral relations with Russia, in part because they share stocks with them and they have a duty under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to co-operate with Russia to manage those stocks. Norway has a bilateral agreement with Russia for that very reason. Similarly, the Faroes have a bilateral fisheries agreement. Specifically on the coastal state negotiations that you mentioned at the start, the Russian Federation was not invited to attend.
Q22 Dr Hudson: Thank you for that clarification. It is important to hear that the UK has a very strong stance on that, so thank you for clarifying that.
In terms of the distant water fleet’s allocation in 2023, how does that compare to what was available prior to our departure from the European Union?
Mark Spencer: It would be down. That is the direct answer. I am not going to pretend it is up, because it is not. It is down.
Q23 Dr Hudson: We welcome that, in terms of the EU negotiations, the quota elsewhere has gone up, but the distant water fleet quota has gone down.
Mark Spencer: Yes.
Q24 Dr Hudson: The UK’s quota for Svalbard is down about 20% compared to 2022. Some boatowners have levelled criticism at Defra about its perceived feelings about the English fleet. What would be your response, Minister, to that criticism that might be levelled?
Mark Spencer: I understand. Of course, it is possible to secure more quota, but you have to trade that. What are you going to give away? If you want to go and get more long-distance cod, you have to give something else away. I am more than happy to listen to representations from the Committee as to what it would want to give away to go and procure that extra cod. We came to the conclusion that we did not feel that that was a price worth paying, and that it would have caused more pain elsewhere. These are trade-offs. They are not easy decisions.
The Kirkella is a very important part of the English fleet, but it is only one part of that fleet. We have responsibility to lots of other communities and boats, and we are trying to strike that balance. Not everybody can be a winner, which I know is frustrating for some individuals and for some companies, but they are the trade-offs that we have to decide. Like I said, I genuinely am open to suggestions as to what you would want to give away in order to procure some more of that, if you felt that that was the right thing to do.
Q25 Dr Hudson: Thank you for articulating that. It is good to get on record how complex this is in terms of the trade-offs that need to be made with that.
As a follow-up question, but on a slightly separate issue, when you are in dialogue with countries like Iceland, Norway and the Faroe Islands—and we have asked your predecessor about this and have been running a concurrent inquiry on marine mammals—that still have activities that go along with the killing of cetaceans, is that something that you can give us confidence? Your predecessor said the answer to this was “yes”—that, when you are discussing things in negotiations, this topic is talked about and that the UK’s view is that this is an abhorrent practice in terms of the killing of cetaceans. You talk about it as part of Global Britain, our values and where we stand on that. Can you give us reassurance that that is ongoing?
Mark Spencer: We do. They are raised, of course, and UK consumers would be very keen for us to raise that as well. Retailers are very much aware of that. It is part of our responsibility to communicate it. These gents either side of me are part of that direct conversation.
Colin Faulkner: To give you an example, last week you talked about the Faroese dolphin situation about 18 months ago. I am head of delegation at a number of these negotiations that involve the Faroe Islands, and I have made representations to my counterparts in Tórshavn. It is important to register that these are fisheries negotiations, which are focusing on quite specific issues, but the policy contacts that those negotiations have taken place with—our Faroese colleagues, our Icelandic colleagues and our Norwegian colleagues—know the UK’s positions very well. We reiterate those positions regularly. We are focused primarily on fishing opportunities, but the issues that you mention come up regularly in conversations, whether in fisheries negotiations or other forums, and internationally.
Dr Hudson: That is encouraging, thank you. Can we encourage you to keep that on the table, albeit it is separate to what you are dealing with? Saying what Britain feels about these things is so important on the global stage, so thank you.
Q26 Chair: Before I turn to Barry Gardiner, I am just going to take you back to the quota swap for the Svalbard area. Are you monitoring the uptake of species? Is there any species that, over the last couple of years, has consistently had a low uptake that might be desirable to another nation and that we could swap?
Mark Spencer: We constantly monitor those stocks and reflect on how we can negotiate and what we may be able to trade as we get around that table. It is a very complex formula that we end up with. I honestly think that we did the best that we could and I am immensely proud of what our negotiation team were able to procure this time. They have a good deal for the United Kingdom, and we go again next year to try to do better.
Chair: It is reassuring to know that you are monitoring it.
Q27 Barry Gardiner: Minister, when you introduced the presentation at the beginning, you said that, now that we are out of the EU, we have to negotiate each year, which we did not used to do. My recollection is that we had very strenuous negotiations every Christmas, but, of course, that was as a member state within the EU.
I want to focus on sustainability, but I want to take you back to 2013, when the common fisheries policy was put in place and we signed up to making sure that we reached maximum sustainable yield—MSY, as it is known—by 2020. First of all, could either you or perhaps your officials just explain to the Committee and the public what MSY is about?
Mark Spencer: That is probably a Mike question, is it?
Mike Dowell: Yes, a combination of myself and Colin. MSY is maximum sustainable yield. That figure would be the total number of fish, usually in tonnage terms, that you could take from a stock in a given area and it still be able to reproduce and maintain itself for the future, roughly speaking.
Q28 Barry Gardiner: Indeed. Normally, the total allowable catch would be set so as to maintain that stock at that level. There is fishing, which reduces the stock, and there are other environmental factors that do that, such as climate change, changes in predation, and changes in the rate of growth of the species itself. What I want to ask you about is how you would distinguish where a stock is perhaps lower than it could be, given other environmental factors.
The total allowable catch that is set simply in line with MSY might allow you to maintain a stock at a historically low level, whereas, by reducing either the other environmental factors or, more easily, fishing and the amount that you take out of that stock each year, you could increase the biomass of that stock to a higher level, where, ultimately, the catch that was able to be taken by fishing and, therefore, the economic benefit of it could be greater.
Can you explain to the Committee the trade-off between saying, “We can maintain this as a pretty measly stock”—I am exaggerating to make the point—“and we would set our total allowable catch that way”, or, “We could reduce our TAC in order to increase the biomass for the benefit of future fishing generations”? How do you make those trade-offs?
Colin Faulkner: If you look back to, for example, the Fisheries Act that was passed in 2020 by this Parliament, there are a number of objectives that are set out at the start, in section 1 of that Act. One of those is the sustainability objective. There are eight objectives in total. When we are setting quotas and negotiating, we have to take into account a whole variety of objectives.
Maximum sustainable yield is an absolutely crucial management concept to work towards, but there are other objectives that we are seeking to achieve through our fisheries policies. Those are set out in section 1 of the Fisheries Act, and those need to be balanced in different ways, according to which particular fishery you are engaged in.
We assess that balance on good consultation with stakeholders, be it environmental NGOs or industry, and good consultation with our devolved Administration colleagues. Then we go into a negotiation, and perhaps our negotiating partners might have quite a different perspective on MSY, for example. It would be lovely to be able to set every quota in line with MSY, but that is not always necessarily realistic.
Q29 Barry Gardiner: With respect, that is not the question that I was asking. We accept that the whole concept of total allowable catch is to set it in line with MSY, so that you maintain the stock at its current level. That is what we are doing when we set a total allowable catch and fish within that parameter.
What I was asking is how you interject into the whole debate with our counterparts, “Do you know what, guys? If we all held back for a couple of years here and this stock was allowed to reach maturity, or more of the stock reached maturity, they would then produce lots more fish, and that would be in all our interests”.
Mark Spencer: It is very complex and not quite as simplistic as you present, but I understand the argument that you are making, because, of course, at the same time, you have to take into account the socioeconomic impact of the decision that you are going to make.
Spurdog is a very good example of that. Instead of taking a total allowable catch this time, there could be a legitimate argument to say that, if we all hung off and did not harvest any of it, there would be even more next year, but, again, you have to balance that with how much of that we want to eat. There are some stocks that we very much like to eat and we consume vast amounts of, and there are other species that we do not eat as much of. Those thoughts and trade-offs run right the way through our decision-making process.
Q30 Barry Gardiner: I have asked you the philosophical question, and I would like to get more from you on that, if you could write to us with further thoughts about how one can increase the biomass.
Your point, Minister, that fishing communities want to make sure that there is fish for further generations is belied by history, is it not? What we have seen is that, over the generations, for over 100 years, the amount that we catch, with all the technology we now have, is less than we were catching 150 or 200 years ago. Those fishing communities have declined, mainly because of overfishing, and the whole point of the common fisheries policy in 2013 was to try to build those stocks back.
Let me focus now on the specific question. Here, we are looking at the UK-EU sector in particular. Only 48% of the quotas for total allowable catch were consistent with science. They were either at or below the level of catch that ICES set. ICES sets the scientific parameters. We ignored the science in 52% of the TACs that we took here. Why?
Mark Spencer: Forgive me, but that is a negative way of looking at it. We have improved the percentage.
Barry Gardiner: I am trying to make clear what the argument is, so that you can answer it clearly.
Mark Spencer: I understand. We are more sustainable this time than we have been at any point in the past.
Q31 Barry Gardiner: It was the UK-EU-Norway. It was great. Everything was 100% in accordance with science. So it was with the north-east Atlantic coastal states. That was good, but here, with the UK-EU, it was not.
Mark Spencer: Clearly, there is room for improvement. We need to win those arguments with our European colleagues as well, because, of course, this is a negotiation. We are only half of that negotiation process. There is always more that you can do to improve the sustainability of the total allowable catches that are deliverable, but we have to balance that, again, with that social and economic impact that that will have. What we do not want to do is overreact and go at a level that causes peaks and troughs. It is about trying to get that balance right.
Q32 Barry Gardiner: I understand the social and economic factors, the desire of people to eat fish, the communities that benefit economically from these fisheries. That is a huge consideration for you, but it is going against the science that, over a period of 200 years, has seen the economic benefit decline as substantially as it has. That is what worries me. We always say, “This time, we will go a little bit further”. That was the point of that reform. The point of the reform was, “Let us set a date by which we get 100% in line with the science”, and yet we are still not doing it.
Mike Dowell: I will pick up some of those points and questions, in addition to what the Minister has said. Going back to the biomass point, that is a very good one. When you get the advice sheets for every stock that forms part of the negotiations, so in the case of the UK-EU deal there are 69 of them, within those advice sheets you have tonnage figures about what could be harvested as well as the biomass figures and other data. You are right: we absolutely take into account where biomass trends are going. We try to take a more cautious approach in the TAC setting, where there could be cause for alarm in terms of biomass trends.
An interesting example, going back to one of the stocks we talked about earlier in the session, was northern shelf anglerfish. The ICES advice was for a very substantial cut of 30% to 32%. When we are having our conversations with all the stakeholders, talking to the local industry in particular, there is biomass data showing that the biomass is actually increasing on that stock.
However, you also have to take into account that the average size of fish in that stock is maybe not necessarily at the size you would want it to be for that rebuilding purpose, that reproductive capacity. Taking into account all those factors, you are able to come to a decision: “Actually, we think we do not have to take quite such a significant cut as the 30%, but we cannot ignore the fact that the size of fish might be smaller than we want, even if the biomass is looking like it is increasing”. We really take into account all those data points you mentioned.
In terms of the reporting and the figures of how many TACs are set, consistent with the advice, you are absolutely right. Now we have left the EU, we report on the outcomes of our consultations and Cefas pull together that report. We report on how far we have been able to be consistent with the scientific advice for absolutely every single stock, whether ICES can produce MSY advice or not. Certain stocks that we receive advice for are very data-limited, so even ICES would say, “We cannot actually give you a figure”. That is where we try to take a precautionary approach. For those stocks, we would never be able to tick that box that it was consistent with advice, because we would not be able to reach a level as precautionary as might be—
Q33 Barry Gardiner: Can I be clear? It is a genuine question. I am not trying to lead you in any particular direction here. When we say that 52% are not in accordance with ICES advice, does that include where there is no advice, or are we only considering where there is ICES advice?
Mike Dowell: There will always be some form of ICES advice, but there might not be MSY advice, for instance. Within the UK-EU deal, a number of the stocks are zero-catch advice, so anything above zero will never meet that mark, so that affects the reporting. What we try to do there is the mixed fisheries approach, which has been the subject of a lot of debate. That is where we try to, as you say, rebuild those zero-catch stocks by reducing, where possible, the effort on target stocks, not necessarily just through the TAC setting but through technical measures and things such as that.
Q34 Barry Gardiner: Which stock was furthest above the ICES level advice in percentage terms? What was the figure? What was the average figure? If you do not have that to hand, I would not be surprised, but I would be very grateful if you could write to us.
Mark Spencer: Yes, I have that figure in my head. The direct answer is that I do not know, but we can find that data. It will be one of those species that Mike was talking about that is set at zero, where it is a bycatch. It will be one of those zero. I suspect it will be one of those, but we will have to go and find that data. I do not know the answer.
Q35 Chair: To check that what I heard you say, Mike, is absolutely correct, sometimes, in a mixed fishery, you have to go below biomass with certain species, because fishermen cannot see what swims into their nets, so they could accidentally catch species together. Am I correct? I am thinking in terms of, years ago, I can remember Greenland halibut. The Canadians introduced technical measures because Greenland halibuts swim with silver hake, and of course Greenland halibut are huge and silver hake are tiny. If you were targeting silver hake, you were going to catch Greenland halibut. You have to take that into consideration when you are setting TACs, as well as the scientific evidence. Am I correct?
Mark Spencer: Technology can help in some ways, but if you are trying to catch little fish, you are going to catch big fish. If you are trying to catch big fish, there is a way in which you can get your nets so the little fish can swim out.
It is worth mentioning monkfish again, because that is a really good example. In 2018-19, there was a huge spike in the quantity of monkfish, so the biomass of angler fish/monkfish is going up, but the stats say that we should be lowering the total allowable catch because of that anomaly in 2018-19. Those statistics for that data can be misleading, so you have to try to take into consideration all those sorts of anomalies at the same time.
Q36 Barry Gardiner: You are dealing with the maturity of the fish. Orange roughy will not actually breed until 30 years.
Mark Spencer: That is right.
Q37 Barry Gardiner: With older fish there is an exponential increase in eggs.
Mark Spencer: I buy into your argument, Barry. There is an argument that being as sustainable as possible is good for the economy of the industry going forward. We are trying to strike those balances all along.
Q38 Derek Thomas: Now that we have left the common fisheries policy, we have this UK-EU specialised committee for fisheries. Minister, when would you like to see it bring forward proposals on the most threatened stocks?
Mark Spencer: As soon as possible. It is a probably a Mike question, to be honest.
Mike Dowell: I am very happy to pick it up. I have the pleasure of being the UK chair of the specialised committee, so on the UK side get to represent our interests. There is already a very full programme of work from commitments that have been made in the trade and co-operation agreement itself, as well as written records of the agreements that we have made with EU since.
In terms of bringing forward proposals on most threatened stocks, that is absolutely a priority. For instance, we recognise that those zero-catch stocks that we have mentioned already today, such as Celtic sea cod, need a programme of work jointly, between ourselves and the EU, in order to attempt to rebuild them. Those most vulnerable stocks are already part of the programme.
Q39 Derek Thomas: Can I ask you to mark your own homework? How successful has this specialised committee been in relation to addressing challenges around vulnerable stocks, such as Celtic sea cod?
Mark Spencer: There have been very constructive discussions. We are getting close to agreeing how we move forward together. That is the way in which we should operate. These things come down to communication and working together. We have agreed that we are going to follow an evidence-based system and co-operate and try to have a positive impact.
Q40 Derek Thomas: I am not picking on the specialised committee particularly, but is it fair that progress has been probably too slow in relation to non-quota stocks, such as scallops and crabs?
Mark Spencer: I am not sure that is fair, to be honest. That operates on a slightly different system. We have those discussions. There is a global figure of how much of that non-quota stock we can harvest. We have an understanding that, when we reach 80% of that target, we will sit down and have another conversation. It is a very good example of where we co‑operate and understand the rules of engagement. We do not want to take the mickey out of them. We do not want them to take the mickey out of us. It is a very constructive working relationship.
Q41 Derek Thomas: The framework is there and seems to work.
Mark Spencer: That is right.
Q42 Derek Thomas: The UK Fisheries Act, which I was pleased to be supporting, developed the fisheries management plans. Minister, what is your assessment of current arrangements of fisheries management in the UK? Would you say that you are content with how it is done, or is there need for a simplification and reform in the way that we look after fisheries management?
Mark Spencer: Do you mean within the UK, so with devolved Administrations?
Q43 Derek Thomas: Let us take England then. I am really thinking about how the MMO and the IFCA work and then in relation to spatial squeeze, et cetera.
Mark Spencer: Spatial squeeze is a massive issue.
Derek Thomas: It comes up later.
Mark Spencer: It is really coming to bite us on the backside. We want to do so much with our oceans. They are a great opportunity for energy production. They are a huge carbon sink opportunity for seagrass and seaweed. Of course, they are a great opportunity to go and harvest fresh food, fresh fish, from them at the same time. We are not going to be able to do all of that in the same bit of water, so that is going to bring its own challenges moving forward.
Q44 Derek Thomas: I might have been wrong to mention that, because that sends us off in a different direction. At the moment, if I am operating out of the UK, so Newlyn, Cornwall, how would I find fisheries management in the UK in the last couple of years? Do you think it is satisfactory. Do you think there is room within Defra to assess it and possibly reform it?
Mark Spencer: There is always opportunity to do it better. The way you do that is to continue to have discussions directly with those people, those stakeholders. That is not just fishermen and fishing communities. It is also NGOs. Lots of people have an interest in this area. Our door is constantly open to those conversations. I must have four or five meetings a week with separate organisations that represent fishermen or NGOs or interested parties. We are quite good at listening and taking in that information and communicating that into a policy.
Q45 Derek Thomas: Can I just clarify on the spurdog? I know we do not want to go on all afternoon on spurdog. I am not sure I have heard right. Is it right that there is a statutory instrument coming forward? If so, when can we expect that?
Mark Spencer: That is a matter for business managers. Of course, I am very keen to get on with it, because the EU has started. We need to get on with it and create that opportunity for our own fishermen, I am told relatively soon. I am very keen to encourage business managers. If you wanted to write to the Leader of the House and encourage her to table said SI, I would be delighted.
Q46 Derek Thomas: I will consider that, because certainly Cornish fishermen are reporting an increased activity of spurdog. They are also concerned, not just about the fact that they are catching it and it is a big bycatch, but also what impact it is having on other stocks.
Right at the beginning, you were asked to predict whether the UK fishing sector would maximise its quota. What is the assessment of 2022? Did we in 2022?
Mark Spencer: We do not necessarily monitor uptake. We are focused much more on setting those quotas and the total allowable catches. It is down to individual businesses to decide whether they want to take that quota up. I am trying to work out where you are trying to go with that. I suppose that you are going to say to me that, if we are not going to harvest all of fish A, why do we not swap that for fish B?
Q47 Derek Thomas: It is certainly a question that we have off the Cornish coast.
Mark Spencer: The difficulty is that we do not know which fish we are not going to catch. That is the difficulty. We are trying to second-guess that all the time.
Q48 Derek Thomas: Do you think that there are lessons learned? Can you look back at each year, at what was caught and what was not landed in the previous year?
Mark Spencer: Yes, to a certain extent, but again, of course, there can be different circumstances in relation to the reason why we did not catch that. It could be, if there is plentiful supply of a certain species of fish, the market value of that fish could plummet, which means that it is not economically viable to go and harvest that species of fish. There can be labour shortages. If there is a gap in the processing sector, so the processing sector cannot manage a fish stock, clearly the value of that stock will go down as well.
Q49 Derek Thomas: To conclude, you are saying that, every year, while we say what is the total allowable catch, we do not necessarily know fully exactly how that was exploited in the previous year.
Mark Spencer: We have a rough idea, but we do not know that data when we are negotiating. We did not know what the 2022 figures were when we were negotiating 2023, for example. We will know 2022’s figures by the time we negotiate 2024. How relevant that data is to those negotiations is questionable.
Derek Thomas: That is fair enough.
Q50 Chair: Minister, how closely do you monitor the recorded landings submitted by producer organisations and people like that. I accept that you do not have a full idea, but when you produce weekly spreadsheets, surely you have an indication as to what that uptake has been, although I accept that the landing data is about two or three weeks behind. It is not in real time.
Mark Spencer: We have that data. We watch that data. We monitor it from the principle that we do not want anybody to go over quota, so we are monitoring that quite closely. We do not know the data from Norway or the EU until much later, but we are watching that very closely ourselves for our own fishermen.
Q51 Dr Hudson: The UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement that was concluded at the end of 2020 included details of how the UK and the EU would co-operate in future years, in terms of the management of shared stocks. I know that your focus currently very much has been on the annual negotiations. Again, I congratulate the Government on their recent negotiations for 2023, with that 30,000 tonne uplift. What work is underway in the medium to longer term to negotiate new access and stock allocation arrangements with the EU from July 2026 onwards, including within, potentially, the six to 12-mile limit?
Mark Spencer: Within the UK, there is a lot of discussion, obviously talking to the devolved Administrations, to work out how we are going to work together as a United Kingdom. We have not necessarily started those conversations with the EU at this stage. I do not need to tell you that, politically, there is a general election probably between now and that moment. That can have a huge impact on the direction of travel. There is a lot of work going on behind the scenes within the Civil Service, which these gentlemen may want to refer to, to make sure we have a position we agree to within the UK.
Mike Dowell: We have already spoken to, and we will continue to speak to, the key stakeholders—industry as well as environmental and ENGO stakeholders—on what those priorities and objectives could be come 2026, because it comes around very quickly. We want to do as much of that engagement as possible. That is already underway.
Q52 Dr Hudson: Colin, do you have anything to add to that at all?
Colin Faulkner: No, other than to reiterate that point that we will continue to discuss with stakeholders to understand the relative merits of each of the possible objectives we might have by the time we get to 2026.
Q53 Dr Hudson: It is always difficult to predict in the future, but can you give some assurance? Are you confident that, after July 2026, UK fishers will have greater access?
Mark Spencer: Do you mean greater access to UK water?
Q54 Dr Hudson: To UK water, yes, and then potentially some of the shared areas as well. Where is the direction of travel for UK waters to start with, and then the wider picture?
Mark Spencer: The direct answer is, “If that is what we desire”. Over the last two or three years, we have learned that co-operating with our neighbours is a good, positive thing. There is huge advantage in allowing Norwegian boats to come into UK waters if UK boats can go into Norwegian waters. We recognise borders; fish do not. Co-operation with our near neighbours on a constructive level will benefit the UK fishing fleet in the most positive way.
Your direct question is whether we will see better access. The answer is yes. That could be to EU waters and Norwegian waters, as long as we understand that that will mean their boats coming into ours. For me, Brexit was not about pulling up the drawbridge, building a fence around the UK and saying, “Those fish are all ours”. It was about giving us the control to say who can and cannot fish in our waters and to be able to negotiate, with our near neighbours and friends, a fair trading arrangement. That is what we are seeing.
Q55 Dr Hudson: In that spirit of increased control but then co-operation with our friends and allies, do you anticipate that that would potentially produce healthier fishing stocks and healthier UK waters as well, that we would work together to produce healthier stocks?
Mark Spencer: That is one of our main ambitions. We have that shared interest. Norwegian fishermen want a sustainable industry. They want their children to take over those businesses, as do French and Spanish fishermen. We all have a shared interest. Obviously we are competitive and want to make an economic return, but we want that to happen for the next 50 years, not just for the next five.
Q56 Chair: Minister, I have a couple of supplementaries, first on the six-to-12-mile limit. There is a very unfair share out of access to our six and 12‑mile limit by EU vessels and the amount we get back in return as access to its six-to-12-mile limit. Can I ask you now to please confirm that you are looking to extend the sole access for UK fishermen, which they already enjoy in the nought-to-six-mile limit, out to 12 miles?
The London convention, which predates the CFP, was for specifically named vessels from other member states. This was changed under European legislation and there is no reason why we could not say, once a vessel has outlasted its access life and it is sold on or scrapped, it loses its right to access. It would be good for you to look at this.
Fishermen and fisherwomen thought that they were promised that until the trade agreement was completed. You have a duty to try to rectify that. That is probably not the view of the committee, but it is my personal view and I am asking you to look at it, particularly since the former Secretary of State was on the local media on Sunday, saying that he did not feel that we had achieved a good enough deal originally when it was negotiated. I am asking you to look at that.
There is a second thing that I am asking you to look at. I understand that, in 2026, the energy section of the trade agreement is also up for review and it moves to annual negotiations. I really hope that we are not going to see any trade-offs. I hope that the current situation, where we are moving to be energy sufficient ourselves, will help, but we do not want to see any trade-offs of access to our fish stocks being given away as we need access to energy. Could you confirm that you are looking at that as well, please?
Mark Spencer: With the caveat that there is a general election between now and 2026, one of our ambitions is to secure the best possible deal for the United Kingdom. I do not want to go into the negotiation, if I am still fortunate enough to be the Fisheries Minister, starting with an ultimatum. That would be the wrong way to begin a negotiation, but we are very much minded to try to secure the best possible deal we can.
You mentioned energy and spatial squeeze was also mentioned. We are not the only country in the world that is facing this challenge. French fishermen will be facing this challenge as well, so they will be thinking about that.
Q57 Julian Sturdy: In terms of the differences with the EU over the licensing of EU vessels in the UK and Channel Islands, are they fully resolved now?
Mark Spencer: We are in a good place. We are in a much better place than we were. There are always going to be those discussions and negotiations, but we have a very constructive relationship with Guernsey and Jersey. They have a relatively constructive relationship with their French counterparts. We are nowhere near where we were a year ago, where it was quite fractious. It is fair to say that we are in a much more positive place.
Q58 Julian Sturdy: Was it discussed at the meeting on 21 October? Was it brought up?
Mark Spencer: Off the top of my head, I do not think that it was on the agenda. The answer is no. It was not on the agenda. That is my understanding. That does not mean to say that it is not discussed elsewhere. Just because it was not on that agenda does not mean to say it is not being discussed. I have recently met with a quad of representatives from Guernsey, Jersey and the EU to finally try to pull those negotiations to a conclusion. I think that they are close, if not concluded.
Q59 Julian Sturdy: You would say that it is moving forward.
Colin Faulkner: They are making good progress.
Q60 Ian Byrne: I am going to touch on the UK seafood fund, Minister. Your predecessor told the Committee last year, in July 2022, that the aim of the UK seafood fund is to get us ready to catch the extra quota that is coming our way. Why is there still no funding today from the main infrastructure scheme that has been aimed specifically at the wild-catching sector?
Mark Spencer: I am not entirely sure. We have allocated quite a lot of money already to specific schemes.
Q61 Ian Byrne: Some £55 million has gone to projects that are not the wild-catching sector, more infrastructure, building capacity across the UK fishing sector.
Mark Spencer: That is right. For example, I was lucky enough to go a huge cold store in Grimsby that had received some of that funding. I would make the argument that, for that catching sector, there is huge benefit in improving the processing industry and the infrastructure on land. We have just launched the second round of that, so the bidding process has now opened again for the second round.
Q62 Ian Byrne: Is that open now? It was due to be in November? Is it open?
Mark Spencer: It is open. We have not assessed them, but the second round bids are being submitted.
Colin Faulkner: That is my understanding.
Q63 Ian Byrne: It is now open. Bids are going in now.
Mark Spencer: Yes. I would encourage people to take a look at it.
Q64 Ian Byrne: How much do we estimate to be left over for the wild-catching sector from the infrastructure scheme? It was up to £65 million, was it not?
Mark Spencer: Yes. There will be top side of £50 million left. No, it is more than that, is it not? Was it £140 million in total?
Q65 Ian Byrne: How much?
Mark Spencer: I think that we have allocated £50 million, and there is another £50 million to come. It is substantial money. These are big projects that will be able to benefit communities up and down the country. I know that we have seen a fairly good geographical spread of that cash across the United Kingdom.
Q66 Ian Byrne: You are happy that every sector will be getting the opportunity.
Mark Spencer: I am happy that every sector will have the opportunity to bid. That does mean to say that they are all going to be successful. It is a competitive competition. I cannot sit here and say that they will all benefit, because it is a competitive process, but everybody should have a fair opportunity to bid. I would encourage fishing communities up and down the country to take a look at that scheme, because there is a big opportunity.
Q67 Derek Thomas: The fund is to unlock and to future-ready the industry. One of the challenges facing some ports is the need for harbour revision orders and how long that takes, which locks them out of applying for this fund. The former Secretary of State said that there was work that Defra would need to do to speed up that process and possibly bring it back in house. Are you engaged or aware of that work? Do you agree that that needs to be done and can it be picked up?
Mark Spencer: Obviously there is always a desire to expedite these applications and to try to speed them up, but they are often complicated applications. If you are working on the coast, if you physically alter something on that coastline, that can have quite a dramatic impact two or three miles down the coast. Coastal erosion is a very real challenge that we face. If you alter something in one place, you can have a big impact somewhere else. That is why we have got the MMO to look at those sorts of applications to make sure that they are not going to have that impact.
Q68 Derek Thomas: If the harbour revision order takes two years, just the process of the revision order, and then you need to do the infrastructure beyond that, it means that this fund is not available to ports that need the harbour revision order. That port then has no way of getting ready for this extra catch that we are seeing.
Mark Spencer: You could make the argument that they will miss out on this specific fund, but the Government have a very good track record of supporting communities up and down the country, investing in their future and making them more sustainable. Who could predict what may be available to those ports at any point in the future, depending on who is in charge?
Derek Thomas: I actually agree with you. I think that you are being honest with the sector. Can we get a letter from Defra, setting out what is actually going on about this, because it has been raised a number of times?
Q69 Chair: I have actually just made a note to come in after your questioning. Minister, it seems as though the £100 million has been spent on various different things within the fishing industry at the moment. I do not expect you to be able to tell us now, but could you write to the Committee, setting out exactly how much has been spent on various things, such as marketing purposes and infrastructure, and how much is left, please?
Mark Spencer: That is publicly available data that we are more than happy to share with you.
Q70 Chair: If you could send it to the Committee, that would be extremely useful.
Mark Spencer: There are some really good examples, not just cold storage. There was a dry dock, which I think we supported, down on the south coast. There has been some really good investment in infrastructure.
Q71 Chair: We were asking how much was left for the catching sector and you said that about £50 million had been spent. I think that it may be more than that, so I am asking whether you can set it out.
Mark Spencer: We will supply all of those figures, where it has been spent, for you.
Q72 Chair: Could you also confirm that the total is still £100 million?
Mark Spencer: Yes.
Colin Faulkner: We will confirm in writing.
Chair: It is definitely £100 million.
Mark Spencer: Yes, we will set it all out for you.
Q73 Chair: There was £65 million spent on infrastructure apparently, so that does not leave £50 million. That is £35 million.
Mark Spencer: We will supply you with all of those figures, because I am aware that some bids may not be taken to fruition.
Q74 Chair: It would be useful for us, as a Committee, to know where we are, absolutely, definitely, as of now.
Mark Spencer: You will understand that sometimes people bid for things and they are successful, but then their economic circumstances change and they may have to withdraw from that application. We will set all of that out in writing to you.
Chair: I appreciate that, but it would be good for us to be updated. Thank you very much.
Q75 Derek Thomas: Can I particularly pick up on the bit I was raising? With the previous set of Ministers, there was, I understood, or we were led to believe, a concerted effort to look at this issue of harbour revision orders in relation to this particular fund. I understood that work was being done to address that. Obviously, you have a whole new team since then. Can we ask the Minister to update us on whether that is a live issue or whether we have settled on the fact that there will be future funds?
Mark Spencer: We can do you a full update on that fund.
Chair: That would really be appreciated. Thank you very much.
Q76 Derek Thomas: This is about the spatial squeeze. A local-ish example would be the Celtic Sea floating offshore wind, which is an important part of the country’s commitment to reaching net zero. I am asking you whether you agree with the fishing industry’s spatial squeeze report that fishing grounds are under pressure from a range of competing spatial pressures, including offshore renewable energy and the Government’s proposed highly protected marine areas.
Mark Spencer: Clearly, there is that pressure. There is no doubt about it. It is probably even more challenging for Scottish fishermen. There is a huge drive for renewable energy. We want these marine protected areas to be there as seeding areas for our fish, as well as improving biodiversity within the ocean.
We have to try to make sure that we co-operate and work to try to balance those requirements to allow the fishing fleet to be able to continue to harvest fish. That means that they need to be included in those discussions when those applications are being considered and Government need to have their ears open to those conversations with the fishing sector, which I have done on a regular basis.
Q77 Derek Thomas: How can you address the concerns from the industry about the fishing, about the impact of highly protected marine areas?
Mark Spencer: We are looking at those at this moment in time. I do not want to jump the gun, and clearly we are not in a position to announce what we are going to do in those areas. We all have a common interest. Fishermen want a sustainable future. We want a sustainable future. Those marine protected areas will help as we progress to a more sustainable industry moving forward. They can benefit the fishing industry as well, but you have to get them in the right place. That is certainly what we are looking at.
Q78 Derek Thomas: Do you know when the Government expect to respond to the consultation on the first five highly protected marine area sites?
Mark Spencer: We are pretty close to that. I will use my “spring” expression again.
Q79 Chair: Mr Gardiner was going to ask you this, but, in his absence, I am going to continue with his questioning. Again, it is about marine protected areas. How are you addressing the concerns of the fishing industry about the impact of highly protected marine areas?
Mark Spencer: That it is through conversation. Clearly, they will have an impact on where people fish and where they are able to go and conduct their business. We have to try to reassure those fishing communities that there is a benefit to them as well. We also have to strike that balance between a sustainable future and improving biodiversity and our environmental impact on our oceans.
Q80 Chair: Are you able to share your analysis of the overall submissions made to the Government on the consultation on creating the first five highly protected marine sites?
Mark Spencer: That will be coming very soon. We should be able to produce that report very soon. It is something that we are close to concluding. Once we have been able to do that, I would be delighted to come back to the Committee and talk to you in more detail at some point in the future.
Q81 Chair: I think that I heard you say that you will be publishing your response to the consultation in the spring.
Mark Spencer: Yes. There were over 900 responses on those marine protected areas, which is quite a lot to munch our way through, which is why it is taking a bit of time. There is no point running a consultation if you are not going to actually read the responses. You have to go through that line by line and take into consideration what people have said. Otherwise, there is no point having a consultation if you just made your mind up in the first place.
Q82 Chair: How will the fishing industry be involved in the co-operation on maritime spatial planning under the renewable energy memorandum of understanding between the UK and the North Sea countries?
Mark Spencer: I see that as one of my primary roles: to be that receiver of their concerns. I need to communicate those directly to BEIS, which is the Department that is responsible for procuring offshore wind. We have those conversations between the Departments. I am very much aware that the sector has strong concerns. That has been communicated to me directly by the sector We will try to represent it and ensure its voice is heard.
Q83 Chair: Is there anything that you would like to add, Minister, to anything that you have given us today? I know that we have time, so is there anything else that you would like to add?
Mark Spencer: I do not want to blow my own trumpet, but I will blow the trumpet of my team. These guys have worked day and night in very difficult circumstances, under pressure, to go and procure the best deal for the United Kingdom. I am enormously proud of what they have achieved for our sector. There is always more to do. There is always more we can improve. The way we do that is through communication and discussions with those who have a vested interest, whether that is fishermen, NGOs or environmental groups. We are the sponge that absorbs that information and tries to make decisions based on that information we receive.
Chair: Thank you very much. Can I thank your team as well? Having gone through situations for a number of years before I was elected to this place where I was either glued to the television or glued somewhere, looking at the annual fisheries negotiation, just before Christmas each year, I understand what you perhaps have achieved. Thank you very much, Minister. Thank you very much for coming and being so frank in your answers to us.