Transcript - UK-EU TECA Fisheries Review - Witness Simon Bossy - 2 February 2021

Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel

U.K./E.U. T.E.C.A. Fisheries Review Witness: Simon Bossy

Tuesday, 2nd February 2021

Panel:

Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade (Chair) Connétable J.E. Le Maistre of Grouville (Vice-Chair) Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin

Deputy G.J. Truscott of St. Brelade

Deputy I. Gardiner of St. Helier

Connétable S.A. Le Sueur -Rennard of St. Saviour

Witness: Mr. S. Bossy

[12:11]

Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade (Chair):

Right, thank you. Hello, Simon. Simon Bossy, I welcome you to the Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Panel meeting this morning. We welcome you with the experience of your former role. Could I just ask you to describe that because you could probably describe it better than me?

Mr. S. Bossy:

Okay. Hello, panel members. Yes, I joined the department to do some postgraduate research work on lobsters in 1981, and then in 1983 I was made the marine resources advisory officer, if you like, and since then built a small team to manage the fisheries resources. We began negotiating these different regimes that we have in place up until last year.

That is great. We have been discussing with Law Officers, and particularly recently, the chart, if you like, and you kindly dropped in a chart for me, which I have with me. Other members of the panel are aware of the chart in electronic form. The situation at the moment - I am sure you have been following it avidly - is that the Granville Bay agreement as a result of the T.E.C.A. (Trade and Economic Co-operation Agreement) will fall away. Could you just give us a bit of background on the Granville Bay agreement and perhaps suggest whether you consider its abandonment is a good plan in this climate?

Mr. S. Bossy:

Okay. Well, very briefly, and I will try and be brief, you have to remember that this was negotiated from about 1986 to about 1999. That is between 25 and 35 years ago, and at that time the Jersey fishing industry was a bit different. We had 3 parts to the fleet: a beam trawler fleet working the central English channel, channel potters and then the local industry. Since then, the beaming fleet and the channel potting industry have fallen away and we are left only with the local industry, but it is relevant and I will mention it in a minute. So the elements that we had to sort out really were territorial waters, a median line out to which the territorial waters would go, and then some sort of access, management and enforcement agreement with France, which in fact was the Granville Bay treaty. But without the other elements, that is to say extension of territorial waters to the median line and the median line itself, we could not really go ahead.

[12:15]

On top of that, we needed to negotiate an F.M.A. (fisheries management agreement) with the U.K. (United Kingdom) to show that we were responsible enough to have our waters extended to 12 nautical miles or the median line, and we also had to resolve the fishing issue with Guernsey. So, to get all of this done, there were a lot of pieces in the jigsaw, complicated pieces, that needed to be put in place to get the Granville Bay treaty up and functioning. So the Granville Bay treaty itself really had 3 main elements to it that we needed to resolve. One is access, and that really is portrayed in the chart that you have, Mike, and the others have seen, with the various areas, A, B, C, D. We could talk about that in detail if you wish. Then a way of enforcing what we wanted to put in place, and the Granville Bay treaty or notes to it cover enforcement, the courts that we would be using, the Magistrate's Court, the Royal Court, and the level of fines. Then the actual management of the area in terms of conservation of the species, fishermen and administrative meetings and the Granville Bay management groups, and then continual review, modification and renegotiation of elements to it as the fishing situation changed. So the Granville Bay treaty had those 3 elements: access, enforcement and management, to cover. So, is that okay so far?

Yes, indeed. Other members of the panel will chip in as and when, but if you carry on that would be great, thank you.

Mr. S. Bossy:

Okay. You asked me how that has manifested itself and how it changed or how it has worked, I think. Essentially, the meeting between fishermen on a regular basis and the meetings between the administrators on a fairly regular basis I think worked very well. It kept any growing problems sorted out. The air was cleared. We got to know the fishermen and the administrators on the other side, and there was a general respect between the different parties. So I think that side worked quite well. The conservation elements began not to work very well in that when we wanted to put certain things in place ... let me give for an example we found that there is a big whelk fishery, or was, to the east of the Island. That was being over-exploited. We did some research work and found that the minimum size of the whelks at 45 was too small and it really should be up at the minimum size of maturity, which is about 55 or 60 millimetres. But getting that minimum size changed with the French by negotiation and at these meetings proved to be very difficult. So although the process was there to try and discuss these things with them, French fishermen had a very strong hand in what was going to go forward or not. The administrators almost seemed to be ... let the fishermen voice ride the day, even though scientific data would show them to be wrong. So, that needed more muscle, really. The enforcement side went pretty well. From the day one we started off, we started patrolling the areas and we had a fairly decent enforcement regime and were able to bring fishermen back to book in Jersey, although there were initial problems but that worked quite successfully. If you look at the record of arrests and fines, you will see it is pretty substantial over the history of the regime. Does that help?

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

Indeed it does. One of the points that has been highlighted is over the present proposals whereby we have the option to license what I might describe as qualifying French vessels in our waters. How would you view that?

Mr. S. Bossy:

Apart from the administrative burden that it is likely to be, I would have said it does give us a lot more of a handle to manage the fishery. Because with a licence, you attach a variety of conditions and those conditions can be changed usually quite regularly, although they have to be changed probably for everybody fishing in the area; that is to say in a non-discriminatory way between Jersey fishermen and French fishermen. But having the power to issue the licences and attach conditions which Jersey can vary on it would be quite a powerful tool.

There is some question over the licensing process as to where the particular vessels may be licensed to fish, and the suggestion is that we may have all these vessels licensed to fish within the median line, which would seem far from satisfactory. We have seen in previous days grandfathering arrangements and controls from damaging metiers such as pair trawling and scallop dredging. Do you recall French vessels being restricted to certain areas? For instance, I think we had the A and the B areas in the Granville Bay up by the Dirouilles and the Paternosters. Did those vessels tend to stray outside those areas to fish?

Mr. S. Bossy:

Yes, they were boats from Portbail and Carteret mainly and there was only limited access in zones A and B; that is the Dirouilles and the Paternosters. They tended to be small boats and I am not sure if they really went to other areas west of Jersey at all. Is that ... I am not sure if that is what you were asking.

The Connétable of St. Brelade : Yes, indeed.

Mr. S. Bossy:

But other boats were restricted, for example, in zone D to the south-west of Jersey. That was just restricted to, I think, 6 netters from St. Malo at certain times of the year.

The Connétable of St. Brelade : Yes, that seemed sensible. Steve?

Deputy S.G. Luce of St. Martin :

I will come back to those 6 netters if I may, Simon, later, but the question I wanted to ask you just straight off was that you will be aware that the T.E.C.A. talks about the management of our waters being non-discriminatory and the management must be coming from a sustainability perspective. How do you feel about what appears to be a very great difference in the official data that comes from both sides, be it Jersey or France, about the amount of fish and scallops and lobster? There seems to be a huge difference in the official data as to how much is being taken out of our waters. Could I just ask your opinion on that, please?

Mr. S. Bossy:

I think the records of Jersey catches are relatively accurate, but I would agree that the French figures are difficult to understand. The figures that are collected by Ifremer and are collected by their statistical people, yes, I think are a bit ... they may be at variance with what is actually going on.

The Deputy of St. Martin :

Thank you for that. Can I just get back to those 6 licences? It is my understanding - and I would be interested in your views - that originally you mentioned there were 6 licences issued for that particular area to the French. My understanding, which may be wrong, is that those licences have over the years been replaced ... the boats that had those 6 licences have been replaced over the years but are now boats which are much bigger and have much larger engines and carry a lot more crew, so that the ability to take product out of those areas from a French perspective is now hugely increased on what it was when the original Granville Bay treaty was signed.

Mr. S. Bossy:

You are asking me to comment on that. Yes, I do not have any information on that. When we put in those limits on, say, zone D we are talking about, the 6 St. Malo netters, we did not attach to those limits anything other than a number of boats. So we did not put horsepower limits, crew numbers or V.C.U. (vessel capacity unit) measures in place. We just put number of boats, which was unfortunate. So, I do not have any information, because I have been out of the system for 6 or 8 years, as to how that effort has escalated, but I am sure the Norman Le Brocq will have spotted them and picked up their registrations and be able to tabulate those boats if they are much, much larger. I would not be at all surprised. I am quite sure those people have modernised their fishing efforts and have bigger boats if they have been allowed to.

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

Going back to the stats that Steve mentioned, the Jersey Fishermen's Association have indicated that we are producing stats over here, but the French are not and have deviated from the Granville Bay agreement by not doing so. Ours, I understand, are available online. The French statistics should come from Ifremer, is that correct?

Mr. S. Bossy:

That is correct, yes, Ifremer, Brest, institut français pour recherché au mer.

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

So really do you think it is because the figures are not being returned at key level, if you like? The fishermen, are they doing as they should be, as ours do here, or are they failing to do the correct returns? I think the innuendo was there was a discrepancy or could be a discrepancy in the figures, and one just wonders where that is emanating from.

I really would not know, I am afraid. I do not know where the break in the chain is, other than I think you will find that the administration on fishing on the French side is pretty low key. I just do not think ... if there is a discrepancy it is because they just have not tightened up their data gathering system with the fishermen because the administration is too thinly spread on the ground. I think they have just had other things to do, I would suggest.

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

Going back to negotiations that you had in the past with the Normandy and the Brittany fishermen's associations, do you feel that we have lost that connection? Do you consider perhaps an encouragement of a better connection would help us to come to a collective agreement on how we could better manage our waters? Because it seems at the moment that it is in the French favour as opposed to ours.

Mr. S. Bossy:

Well, in the first 8 or 10 years of running the Granville Bay treaty when we met pretty regularly, those meetings did sort out a lot of problems that could have escalated into quite difficult problems, even physical aggression and gear loss. It brings to mind we had quite a lot of gear loss because Jersey boats fish with static gear a lot of times, mostly lobster pots but also whelk pots. We had a lot of gear loss to the west coast of Jersey because they were being trawled up by French trawlers. We were able to resolve that mostly through direct meetings, talking with the skippers, because we had got all the contacts through these meetings. So, quite a few problems were sorted out and I think without doubt it is important to keep that dialogue going because it is very easy to lose trust and respect for other fishermen and it just manifests itself, builds it up and then leads to people being ... we had one case when things were not going too well where paint was being thrown all over Jersey fishermen's catches in Granville on the harbour and things like that.

[12:30]

By meeting on a fairly regular basis, a lot of that was diffused because not only do you meet in a formal setting, after the meetings there will be usually a meal and a few drinks and the fishermen and the administrators can get on, get to know each other and a lot of respect is built up.

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

Indeed. Just before I move back to Steve, was there a difference in the atmosphere, if I can call it that, between Jersey and the Brittany fishermen and Jersey and the Normandy fishermen?

Yes, there was. The Normandy fishermen situation was generally much better. We had a lot more friendliness and a lot to talk about with the Normandy fishermen. Brittany fishermen were still not aggressive, but they were perhaps more standoffish and there was a different relationship with them. Interestingly enough, we would sometimes find that the arguments between Brittany fishermen and Normandy fishermen would come out and we could spend a half or a third of a meeting with the 2 groups of French fishermen arguing among themselves and we would not have a word to say. So there were quite a lot of gripes between those 2 groups as well. Of course, the Brittany fishermen have much less of an input to the area, particularly to the east. That is part and parcel of what was going on, too.

The Deputy of St. Martin :

Simon, could I just change the subject a bit? It may be something that I do not know how up to speed you are, but you mentioned in your opening words about the whelk stock. Certainly, when I was Minister I had great concerns about the sustainability of the whelk stock and the whelk fishery. We know historically brown crab is becoming an issue. We do not know quite why, but there is a huge reduction in the amount of brown crab that is being landed. More recently, there has been discussions around the sustainability of the lobster stock, which is so vitally important to everybody, especially to our Jersey fleet. Do you have a view on the current state of the lobster fishery?

Mr. S. Bossy:

Yes, I was aware that there has been a huge, it seems, drop in the lobster population, but there are 2 things there. One is that I do not think the collapse in the stock or the diminution of the stock is confined to Jersey. As I understand it, both the French coastal fishery and the fishery to the north, Cornwall and Devon fishery, has had some problems as well, so it would indicate that there is an environmental issue there. But the second issue, too, is that there is still a huge amount of effort on the lobster, particularly inshore. As the lobsters come closer inshore to breed, I think there are problems because of the large amount of effort directed towards the lobster because it is such a valuable catch. Of course, if the brown crab is not there, too, then it is going to be targeted even more. You have to remember that all of these stocks change over time because of the changing environment. An example of that, of course, is the recent advent of the tuna stocks close to us and in the English Channel by Guernsey, too. There are changes going on all of the time. Some are for the better and some are for the worse, and I think there is an environmental aspect in the lobster population decline, too.

The Deputy of St. Martin :

Okay, thank you for that. Just moving on from that, then, the brown crab is in decline and you mentioned the challenges to the lobster environmentally. Do you see new species coming into our waters which we might find commercially viable to fish?

Mr. S. Bossy:

Yes, and the tuna is an example. It is unfortunate, I understand, that the Brits do not have bluefin tuna quota or something, but yes, in the future that sort of thing is likely to occur. Stocks move. So, for example, 30 or 40 years ago there was no bass fishery in the North Sea, yet the bass stocks are now moving up the North Sea and they are finding them in northern parts of the North Sea, too, because of, it appears, the slight warming of the situation. So, in answer, yes, new stocks may come online, but I would not be surprised if the lobster perhaps does come back. It may well be just a cycle, not just a decline that stays declining.

The Deputy of St. Martin :

We have, as you know, Simon, the Écréhous breeding grounds for scallops and we have increased the areas out there where the no mobile geared zone is now larger. We have bream that spawn in our waters and other species as well. Could you just give us 5 minutes or a couple of minutes of your views on no fish areas or areas within our waters where we would potentially stop any activity for fishing at all in order to create breeding grounds and, therefore, repopulate those areas that we do fish in?

Mr. S. Bossy:

Yes, no take zones, yes. Well, they seem to have worked in other parts of the world. I think New Zealand was probably the first place to start pioneering that, but you need a lot of agreement on the ground. When you just have one group of people - let us say in New Zealand or the Australians, they have a 200-mile limit - fishing an area, then it is easier to implement by using scientific information and convincing the stakeholders, but it is more difficult when you have different groups of people fishing in a particular area. I do think their use is good. They are worth persevering with and they are fine to help.

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

Thank you. I am going to take you back to the median lines as such. The overwhelming view of the fishing industry is that Jersey should be entitled to a full 12-mile nautical exclusion zone, including sovereignty over the reefs, and that the T.E.C.A. is Jersey's chance to take back control of its waters. Would you think there is any room for manoeuvring to achieve any greater control of our waters above which we already have, bearing in mind we have historic agreements, particularly the Hague agreement around the Écréhous and the Minkies, which open those waters to all? I suppose the basic question is: can we improve our lot in any way in this Brexit negotiation process?

It would seem to me that if the Brexit process puts Jersey as the issuing authority for licences, that is going to be the main way that you can improve the lot for both Jersey fishermen and the Jersey marine environment by attaching conditions to those licences that will then preserve the marine environment and enhance the marine environment. A healthy marine environment will produce a healthy fishery. So, yes, I think it is the licensing and the conditions attached to the licences by which you can improve the situation, really. But, of course, the rub will be if you improve the environment deciding who gets what in partitioning it off to which particular groups.

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

Do you think that doing away with the Granville Bay agreement would be a retrograde step? It has been suggested by our fishermen in the past that they would like to move away from it. Now, as a result of having moved away from it, the French are keen to get it back. So, we have a bit of a dichotomy. I wonder what your detached view might be of that.

Mr. S. Bossy:

Well, I am not hugely hung up on the Granville Bay treaty. It was a first step. As I explained to begin with, there were many pieces to the jigsaw. There was the extended territorial waters, the median line, and then the access and management agreement that needed to be put in place. I think if you read the Granville Bay treaty you will see it should have been reviewed on a regular basis and the conditions under it should have been changed on a regular basis, but that did not happen, really. We found there was quite a lot of intransigence, a lot of reluctance on behalf of the French to modify it because of the evolving situation in marine resources. That was a shame and I think it does need either a complete redress, a review, and it should have been reviewed and it just seems because of the way it is put forward the French are able to be in a position to say: "No, we are not reviewing it at all, we are not doing anything more to it" and that is unfortunate. So, if the new regime with Brexit came in whereby Jersey issued licences and was able to impose conditions, that would hopefully do the same sort of thing. Unfortunately, you would lose the meeting element, which I think was also very positive. The enforcement side would stay the same, but I think somehow informally the business of meeting up and discussing scientific data and fishing effort, that sort of thing, should be somehow maintained.

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

In your period when you were in office, you had negotiations, I suggest, further than Normandy and Brittany and perhaps going up to Paris. Did you go further up the communication chain with the minister of the sea in Paris? Did you get involved at that level?

We were negotiating this at a pretty high level. It was at the Quai d'Orsay, which is the French foreign office. While we were negotiating, it was done, yes, at a pretty high level. The Foreign Office always had to be present, so the British Embassy and a member, one or 2, of the Foreign Office from London would come over for that. The negotiations were done at a pretty high level. However, as soon as the documents were signed in the Royal Square and the state buildings there, the high- level people fell away and we were just left with senior admin people. Nevertheless, they were senior admin people from Paris. The head of the enforcement wing of the Affaires Maritimes would come along quite regularly.

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

Did you ever have any connections with Brussels?

Mr. S. Bossy:

No, none whatsoever.

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

Right. I am going to just move on to local management. In your time, you set up the marine resources to include a vessel or a substantial vessel. In terms of what is going on now, do you feel that the resource being provided by the department is adequate or whether more resource should be put into the management of our waters?

Mr. S. Bossy:

Yes, I have to say ...

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

You can say this, Simon, because it is not your budget anymore.

Mr. S. Bossy:

Yes, sure. Well, we found or I found that the way to get proper management measures in place, you really needed the scientific data behind what you were doing to convince all the stakeholders that it was a necessary thing to do, whether you were changing the minimum size, whether you were putting no take zones in or you are banning the landing of berried female lobsters.

[12:45]

All of that sort of thing needs data and information behind it. If you just try going out and flying a kite and doing it, it is very difficult to convince all the stakeholders. If you do not have the stakeholders

convinced, then it is going to be very difficult to bring in and then enforce. So, in terms of resources, I do think that if we are going to manage the waters right out to 12 miles, you are going to need the additional resources, whether it is permanent or just brought in, to do that research work to provide the data to change your management measures and to put the conditions on licences.

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

Do you think that the higher management ... well, I was really picking up on what you are saying, a higher volume of management, if one can call it that, increased number of inspections on vessels fishing in our waters, would enhance our ability to control, shall we say, the standard and the arrangements that we have at the moment in terms of conservation? Because it seems that that is an area that is lacking at the moment because, as you said earlier, the French are very thin on the ground. So, would an increased presence in our waters have any marked effect?

Mr. S. Bossy:

Yes, I think it would, particularly if those officers had powers to inspect logbooks and check catch data. I am sure that would help, but fisheries enforcement at sea is always quite difficult and time consuming because you have to be doing it sometimes 24/7. You have to do it at all times of the day and night, and having teams on shift and standby is quite expensive. Also, you can go out there, out to sea, and because of the seasonality of fishing you can stooge around in the boat and not find any French fishing boats at all and the day's or the week's surveillance work comes to nothing. So, yes, increased surveillance work will help, but the people that are involved in that need to be multi metier so in times when the fishing fleets are not operating they are able to be employed usefully elsewhere.

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

Indeed. I do not know if any other panel members have ... Steve has just got the hand up. Steve?

The Deputy of St. Martin :

Simon, going on from that, data is, as you say, absolutely vital and if we are going to make any improvements you have to start from a point where you can prove that we need to make improvements. But would you agree with me that moving forward if we get to issue permits and licences in our own waters that it will be vital that we make it an absolute condition of those licences that data on the fish, lobster, whatever that is taken is recorded and given to the Jersey authorities as part of that condition of the licence?

Mr. S. Bossy:

Yes, absolutely, no doubt. You really need that information, not only the catch information but you want effort information as well, so what is being landed but out of how many pots or how many hours trawling or length of tangle net or whatever. So you want effort as well as catches.

The Deputy of St. Martin :

Do you think there is a case for limiting pot numbers? We have various restrictions on pot numbers in some parts of our waters and under Granville Bay people were obliged to use pot tags. We know that has not been enforced or used entirely as it should be. What is your view on pot numbers and pot tags?

Mr. S. Bossy:

To be honest, Steve, it is difficult for me to say because I am not close enough to the situation. I knew the situation as it was about 8 years ago, but I do not know how pot numbers have changed, escalated or not in the last 8 years. It is really difficult for me to answer that, I am afraid.

The Deputy of St. Martin : Okay. That is fine, thank you.

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

Simon, in your time were you involved much with the landing process in Granville particularly at the Criée? Did that work well in those days?

Mr. S. Bossy:

No, we were not really involved in the landing process. Generally speaking, yes, it did work well. We had quite a few boats ... because, of course, the fishermen get a better price landing direct and they have to balance that against taking the time and the fuel to go down there and come back again. But generally speaking it seemed to work pretty well in the first 10 years and, as I say, we met with the French pretty regularly. If you read the Granville Bay treaty, you will see that not only fishermen could be present in the meetings but the merchants could be present in the meetings as well. So a fish merchant had a place at the meetings that we had. Of course, that was helpful. I do not think it was taken up all that often, but the fact that they could be there and they were there from time to time again helped the business of landing.

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

There has been a suggestion that the issue at the moment is over import paperwork or, from our point of view, export paperwork into Granville and the department is trying to assist in providing help. Was there any department assistance to fishermen at paperwork level in your day?

Mr. S. Bossy:

No, not really. You have to remember that we had a really pretty small team and we were trying to do all sorts of work - we tried to do some research work on whelks - and there was also a great discussion as to which ministry our fisheries team was part of, because we moved to Economic Development at one point and out of Agriculture and Fisheries or Environment. It was the Minister for Economic Development that was putting our legislation through the States and not the Minister for the Environment. So,  things were quite confused and we asked,  I think, the Economic Development people for some help and there was a little bit of help forthcoming but the situation of landing fish into France was quite complicated for them. So, I do not think they progressed very far. Certainly, our fisheries team really was not able to afford any help, I am afraid.

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

Do you consider that fishermen ought to have some assistance in that regard, given this change in circumstances which is facing them and the increased effort needed to get their catch into France?

Mr. S. Bossy:

Yes, I do think on the commercial front if we are to have a fishing industry that is going to be quite substantially based on export, there should be some assistance in doing that export. I am sure in the U.K. when you look at other trading that the U.K. does with other nations there is assistance from the Government in setting up those trading agreements. So, similarly I think in Jersey assistance for fishermen to trade with other parts of the world should be available.

The Connétable of St. Brelade : I think I see Steve's hand up.

The Deputy of St. Martin :

Yes, I am ever so sorry, I have my hands confused but now I am here I will ask another question because I have plenty, although we are running out of time. Where do you see markets in the future, Simon? It is becoming increasingly difficult, for whatever reason, to get stuff into Europe, but on the basis that we can and will find a way to continue to do that, do you think we should be looking to develop markets elsewhere as well at the same time?

Mr. S. Bossy:

Yes, Steve, we did try that. We went up to Brussels, the big fish marketing conference and show up there, and we talked quite a bit, Mike Taylor and I talked a lot with British Airways in using their freight capacity underneath where the passengers sit and getting cargo, for example, lobsters, and shipping them a lot further away to the Far East and things like that. So we did try developing that a little bit, but I cannot quite remember why it did not go too far. But there certainly seem to be markets elsewhere and ... well, not right now, but with the future advent of aeroplanes zooming all over the world there did seem to be transport chains that, for example, British Airways were keen to use and to get our produce to quite far-flung corners. I think that could be examined again.

The Connétable of St. Brelade : Indeed. Inna, you have a question?

Deputy I. Gardiner of St. Helier :

Yes, Mike. Thank you, Simon. Just following up on your last answer to Steve's question, recently it is like a crab paté from Orkney, that long shelf life, 20th of whatever, for a month, in Waitrose. Has our industry thought about production of some type of products from Jersey crabs which Jersey markets that can have a long shelf life and can be distributed? It is production on the Island at the same time. If Orkney can do it, maybe we can.

Mr. S. Bossy:

Yes, I quite agree. Jersey facilities have improved. What we call the Huelin- Renouf building down at the pier used to be a customs-bonded store and with a lot of pushing and shoving we managed to get the Huelin- Renouf building that is on the New North Quay devoted to the fishing industry. It is quite a busy, thriving area now. We also have the Fish Quay build and the fishermen have bases up there. Yes, I think processing is a useful way to go. One of the issues is that we produce a high- value catch. Crabs and lobsters, shellfish, are noted as being high value, so it is less easy to add value to something that is already a high value. But if you choose the right species, it is possible. We did assist, we provided the ice at one point, the ice unit on the end of the Victoria Pier, and also there was a whelk processing unit down there which we helped with. For a few years we were exporting quite large quantities of whelks to the Far East because there was a big market for it. I am sure all of those things still exist. It needs a little bit of pump priming, though.

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

Simon, thank you very much. I do not see any further questions from the panel, so I really do thank you for your input into this complex situation, which we are trying to understand and contribute to in the best way that we can to ensure our fishing industry continues to be supported and continues to exist. So, thanks once again.

The Deputy of St. Martin : Thank you, Simon.

Connétable S.A. Le Sueur -Rennard of St. Saviour : Yes, it has been fabulous. Thank you so very much.

Thank you, Simon.

Mr. S. Bossy:

Okay, Mike, thank you. Well, you know where to find me if you want any more information, but just remember that I have been out of the system for about 8 or 10 years so the current situation is a little bit away from me. But I do have a lot of historic information should you need it.

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

Thank you, much appreciated. Thanks, bye.

Mr. S. Bossy: Cheers, bye, Mike.

[12:58]