(1a)

the Council’s long term commitment to securing a sustainable future for the city’s fishing industry which included -

?

the lifejacket scheme which provided free jackets with locator beacons to fishermen had saved lives at sea;

?

the refusal to allow the redevelopment of the city’s fish quay for restaurants, shops and accommodation;

?

the select committee which had been held two years ago which listened to the industry and helped inform the Council’s Plan for Sustainable Fishing;

?

the support the Council provided to the Plymouth Trawler Agents, during the Covid, pandemic, in setting up Call4fish which helped fishermen from Berwickshire to Jersey to get their catch to customers;

?

options were currently being explored, by the Council, on how to improve the fish market, to provide better facilities for the city’s fishing fleet;

?

the Council planned for a bright future for the city’s fishing industry and was ready to make the most of the opportunities that had been promised by leaving the EU;

(1b)

a new era of prosperity for English fishing had been promised but had not been fulfilled which included -

?

taking back full and absolute control of UK waters out to 200 miles;

?

the 12 mile limit was secured for the exclusive use for UK vessels;

?

a greater share of the catch in UK waters;

?

continued unrestricted access to European markets;

(1c)

the Council had written to George Eustice MP (former Minister of State for Agricultural, Fisheries and Food) and Victoria Prentis MP (Under Secretary for Farming, Fishing and Food) on three occasions seeking -

?

a meeting with local fishermen, in order to hear their concerns at the lack of readiness for the end of the transition period;

?

more support for fishermen during the Covid crisis;

(1d)

the Council lobbied for English fishing to have a greater voice in the future management of its fisheries;

(1e)

the All Party Parliamentary Group on fishing had been addressed in order to put the city’s case direct to those MPs who would listen.

(2a)

the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (Agreement) -

?

sets out the recalibrated quota distribution between the EU and the UK:

?

sets out the process for determining the total allowable catch (TAC) for quota species;

?

determined the future rights of access;

?

afforded the UK with greater policy and regulatory autonomy;

?

introduced tariff free access to the EU market (but there remained non-tariff barriers);

(2b)

there would be a five and a half year adjustment period, starting from January 2021, during which the value of catch the UK could take in its own Economic Exclusion Zone (EEZ) would increase up to an average of 25%;

(2c)

the government had calculated that the total value of the uplift to the UK, at the end of the adjustment period would be £146m (which had been substantially overstated) given that no allowance had been made for actual catch levels by EU vessels (which in some cases had been below the quota ceiling) and did not take into account other opportunities that previously existed for the UK to increase fishing opportunities; 

(2d)

it had been stated that the UK would be able to increase the catch in its waters from approximately half to two thirds; however this only included the UK and EU and not Norway which also had some important fisheries in UK waters; this sharing agreement had yet to be fully negotiated with Norway and the Faroes; the value of the fish that the UK caught in its own EEZ would be unlikely to increase above 60%;

(2e)

there had been uplifts to quotas across the five year adjustment period for the UK but these had not been evenly spread; uplifts in quotas had included hake, Norway pout and sprat; other species important to the UK had not seen an increase or only marginal increases;

(2f)

the Agreement contained detailed arrangements for setting annually the total allowable catch (TAC) of each of the shared fish stocks subject to quota; in many respects the process was similar to what occurred when the UK was within the Common Fisheries Policy, except that the UK would be negotiating with the EU as a third country; this process would not feel different to the fishermen on the ground;

(2g)

determination of future rights of access and the adjustment period -

?

until June 2026 (the end of the adjustment period), the EU and UK would have reciprocal rights of access to catch the allowable quotas, after which there would be annual negotiations on access;

?

there would be far more EU vessels in UK waters (rather than vice versa); there were approximately 1500 EU vessels licensed to fish in UK waters; these vessels were 25m or larger (this was more than the vessels licensed in both Scotland and England); given the number of vessels allowed to fish in UK waters, there would be a major task in managing the UK fisheries;

?

a ‘red line’ had been crossed for the industry with the permission of EU vessels, that had an historic record, to continue to fish in the 6 – 12nm zone of parts of the UK’s territorial waters (almost exclusively in English waters) for at least the next five and a half years (and possibly indefinitely); 

?

the majority of UK licensed vessels were under 10m and fished in the 6 – 12nm zone; with the concentration of both UK and EU vessels inshore, it would limit the opportunities for the smaller UK vessels; the smaller vessels had less flexibility (in where they could fish) than the larger vessels;

?

the Agreement provided the right for the EU fleet to fish non-quota species, some of which were important to the South West (such as bass and cuttlefish); access to non-quota species was based on tonnage; EU vessels would need to demonstrate that they had caught an average tonnage per year; however this had not been measured in the past; the records would show the tonnage caught but not the ICES areas, nor whether the vessel had been fishing or just traveling through an area;

?

the Agreement provided for cooperation and data sharing however, arrangements for this process had yet to be put in place;

?

the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) had stepped up its monitoring capacity but this was still limited; currently there were no arrangements in place for monitoring at sea; there had been no inspections at sea during January 2021; enforcement was very important to the South West fleet as it wanted a properly regulated fishery, otherwise livelihoods would be threatened;

?

the Agreement provided for a specialised committee on fisheries; the committee was empowered to consider and agree, a range of matters of shared interest including measures for fisheries management and conservation, data collection and sharing and joint control, monitoring and surveillance programmes; however, the European Parliament had yet to formally ratify the Trade and Cooperation Agreement and it was anticipated that the specialised committee would not be set up until early summer 2021 (at the earliest);

(2h)

the UK could seek to change the quota distribution or the right of access but there was a presumption in the Agreement that these would be rolled forward and if there were any changes that disadvantaged the EU fleet, the EU could take compensatory actions, by introducing tariffs on fish products/other goods and services and withdraw other elements of the Agreement outside of fishing; the European Commission had made it very clear that it would seek to protect EU fishing communities; if the Agreement were to be changed to restrict EU vessels gaining access to the 6/12nm zone, the government would have to take some tough decisions (given the implications to the overall Agreement);

(2i)

whilst the UK had reclaimed considerably more policy and regulatory autonomy this was not unrestricted; the UK had to act in accordance with the objectives and principles and follow the processes set out in the Agreement;

(2j)

having left the EU, the UK’s third country status had been a huge disappointment to the catching sector; whilst some of the issues experienced in exporting would be temporary, as the industry, government officials and the EU got used to the new systems in place, there would be longer term issues;

(2k)

export work had been undertaken with the Plymouth Trawler Agents to prepare them for the end of the transition period; this had been very difficult, as there had been a lack of detailed information on the new rules and the effect of these; questions that had been asked in early 2019 had not been answered before December 2020 (the advice and guidance on export health certificates had been significantly changed three times between 18 December and 30 December 2020);

(2l)

whilst tariffs would not be applied there was additional paperwork required (such as catch certificates and export health certificates) and additional costs associated with this process (veterinary inspections); goods would also need to go through Border Control;

(2m)

there were however longer term implications with the UK now being a third country since it had left the EU; the EU and member states had the right to require, checks and processes to be followed that safeguarded its citizens; those processes would remain and would have a disproportionate impact on smaller businesses; larger firms would be better placed to adjust to this situation; for smaller businesses exporting smaller quantities of fish this may prove to be uneconomical;

(2n)

the UK government was urged to implement a strategy as a matter of urgency in order to provide clarity (Marine Scotland already had a strategy in place).

(2o)

with regard to EU vessels requiring licenses to fish in 6 and 12nm zone, how long were these licences applicable for?

response: these were annual licences (and could only be altered if circumstances changed); to date, there were 60 EU vessels that had already been licensed;

(2p)

whether further information could be provided on enforcement at sea? How many vessels did the UK have to undertake enforcement at sea and what was the cost of adequate enforcement?

response: there was a mixture of enforcement capacity which included Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities (IFCAs) which had vessels around the coast that could undertake joint operations within the 6nm zone (if the vessels had a warranted officer on board they could go to 12nm and further); the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) had commissioned two vessels to provide enforcement and had arranged with the MOD for the Royal Navy to provide fishing inspection vessels;

(2q)

whether there was reliable data available relating to the fish caught in UK waters but landed in non-UK ports?

response: data was captured from the log books on board the vessels, landing declarations and sale notes; for fish landed in EU ports, data would need to be provided to UK authorities; however, as of 10 days ago, arrangements for the exchange of information had yet to be put in place; the UK as a third country did not have entitlement to this information, although there was a vested interest in the EU and member states providing this information.