From my sudden introduction to this very particular world, I have been quite impressed by the nature of the consultation and co-operation that happens. I arrived at the Department just as the opening was being made on all the international negotiations for fishing opportunities for next year, and I was struck by how integrated a lot of that work was with the industry itself, but also with the devolved Governments. If you are asking whether my officials constantly visit ports all the time, then probably not, but the Marine Management Organisation has a particular presence at every port for every landing of every catch. I know that our officials work very closely with the whole industry. I do not know whether either of you wants to say anything. They may not be in every port everywhere all at once.

That is certainly not my experience since I took up this post.

A huge bloom, yes.

I am an octopus eater myself, but I recognise that not many people in Britain do the same thing.

I do not know the answer to that. We seem to have stuck particularly in this country with our white fish for fish and chips. Tuna is also very much something that we eat in this country. Older, more traditional fish that we ate, like herring, are semi coming back, but they are not big sellers. We are quite conservative when it comes to our fish‑eating habits in this country. I would certainly like us to be a bit more adventurous, but the Government cannot force that to happen. I would be quite interested in doing a statutory instrument on that, but it is not going to happen anytime soon.

The Calamari (Enforcement) Regulations 2026.

I have been struck, since I got this job, by how complex a lot of the issues that are facing the industry at the moment are. That is because of not only the requirement, which has been very well delivered this year by colleagues, to negotiate the fishing opportunities on an annual basis, but the spatial squeeze—what else is going on in the sea, the introduction of large numbers of marine protected areas, the fishery protection plans that are being promulgated. I think we have five more coming along, with a few more to come afterwards. There is an awful lot of very detailed, technical work, some of which is making it more difficult than it has been in the past for our fishers to get out there to the places where they normally find fish. There are a great number of competing interests. It is about how you ensure sustainability of fish catches over time, which is what the total allowable catch negotiations are about, attached to the science as they are, but also how you prioritise between the requirements of those who use the ocean bed, and marine protection. There is a great deal of quite complex interrelation between those things. I see my role particularly as trying to ensure that we fish sustainably—not least because I have a legal duty to deliver that, under the Fisheries Act 2020—but also to make certain that we provide our own fleets with the potential to carry on making a living and making a good living by fishing in sustainable ways in the future, and give them the space to do that in what is quite a complex ocean environment.

It is quite interesting, isn’t it? It is about the only thing that we do not have a strategy for. As a person who likes strategies, I can see the benefit. There has not been an announcement about that, but I am more than open to thinking about it when I can draw breath after all the things that have been thrown at me at the beginning, as a result of the negotiations. It has potential, yes.

What did he say?

I have seen the maps and, when you overlay those with the marine protected areas and you then look at what is happening with energy infrastructure, the things we cannot talk about, which are military, and various other things, there is a genuine spatial squeeze. We have to make certain that we make the right decisions spatially. We are working with the Crown Estate, which is giving the licences out for offshore energy production, to make sure that we get that right.

This was a decision taken before I arrived, but all devolved Governments and the national Government decided that they would not increase the levy that Seafish can use. I do not know whether anyone has any other insights, but it has left Seafish with some decisions to make about what it does or does not proceed with.

I have, yes. I have done a little bit of that myself, albeit not in Brixham, just a bit further down the coast. I do not disagree with you at all. It is really important, from a policy point of view, but also from a ministerial point of view, to go and listen to the people on the ground and see precisely the issues that they are dealing with. That can then inform your decisions—often having to choose between suboptimal things all round. I do not disagree with you at all, Chair.

Of course. How long will it take me to get up there? You will be the expert.

Is it still up there? The octopus haven’t got there yet?

First, I hope that Bridlington will be aware that it has a champion in Government when it comes to its shellfish industry. I am more than happy to hear from them if they have ideas they want to put past me. In terms of the science, we are obligated to act on scientific advice, so that we can ensure that fishing is done sustainably and that we do not collapse resources and lose those fisheries for the future. No science is perfect, but ICES’s advice is the best that we have. We have to pursue our negotiations on that basis. However, I do know, particularly from when I was in Cornwall, that they do a lot of extra science down there that is more up to date than some of the lagging science that gets its way up to ICES. We do collaborate very closely and all our scientists collaborate with ICES. We have a lot of connections with it to make the scientific advice as good as possible, but I suspect that it has been said for quite a long time by fishers, “This advice is out of date. There are lots of fish down there. Of course we should be fishing it.” I know particularly with the cod in the North sea and the Celtic sea there were some worries about the scientific advice and that they had been too precautionary this year. There is an interaction all the time behind that, but we have to base our negotiations on the scientific advice as is, while seeing what we can do to help improve it and make it as up to date as possible.

I understand your frustration. That was the advice on that particular question, but there were some other options ICES put on the table for those fisheries, which were the ones that we took up. I do not know whether officials want to go into more technical detail about it. The advice for zero catch was one option, but not the one that we have actually ended up negotiating on, partially because we were thinking about the socioeconomic issues concerned and trying to be more pragmatic. It gives several options. There was a second option, was there not? Do you want to—

It was 48%, was it? I am trying to remember.

You are right.

I suspect that an outcome that pleases nobody is probably the best we can do in some of those circumstances.

We do what we can to interrogate what the situation is before ICES comes up with its calculations. Is it in July? It normally comes up with its calculations in July and we have a lot of contact with it before that. This year has been very challenging all round, because of the quota cuts, some of which are very difficult to swallow indeed. We have done a reasonable job and got about 150,000 tonnes, worth about £450 million of catching opportunities for our fleet this year. This is not a bad result and is also a tribute to the very detailed work that our colleagues in those negotiations do on our behalf.

This is the EU-UK negotiations, not some of the rest of it. They were done under the terms of the trade and co-operation agreement, where there is a technical aspect to that.

I know they did, but it was on zero-catch species, to try to preserve them, and on net sizes. We managed to exclude under-12-foot boats from those. It will affect EU fishers far more than ours and it will preserve some of the zero-catch species that will be able to get through the nets, which would not have got through the nets as bycatch prior to that. I have talked to the Cornish fishermen about that very thing and they did raise it, as did the NFFO. It may have raised this, Chair, when you went in after me to its annual general meeting a couple of weeks ago. The fact is that, under the trade and co-operation agreement with which we left the EU, there are rights to have those kinds of technical negotiations during our negotiations on fishing opportunities in those particular waters. I know that it was a bit of an unpleasant surprise to them.

We will try to keep them in touch going forwards, but it was for zero catches and we have exempted the people who would have been particularly hit. We are likely to see recovery in some of the species that will get through the bigger nets.

Certainly on the last part of your question, yes, it is really important. There are some examples of that being done in Scotland as well. A quota has been kept aside for young fishers who are maybe just starting out in the smaller boats before they become captains of very much larger boats in their careers, if they enjoy their time at sea. That is the kind of progression that you want to see. It is important to create that kind of inshore opportunity that can renew some of the people who are involved in fishing. I would definitely be well disposed to the use of the fund for those kinds of purposes. It is also important that we listen to what people on the ground are saying they want to use the fund for. In the past, other funds have been rather gobbled up by the people who are used to applying for funds like that. I want this to make a real difference in terms of renewing some of those ways in and opportunities for fishers around our coasts.

It was my pleasure.

Not only no‑alcohol beers, Chair.