Page 1 of 5

SEA FISH INDUSTRY AUTHORITY

Minutes of the

Import and Processing Panel Meeting

Held at Fishmongers Hall, London Bridge, London on 19 June 2012

Present:

Chris Pomfret Chairman to the Import and Processing Panel

Steve Norton Grimsby Fish Merchants Association

Peter Stagg Le Lien

Bill Mooney Ruskim Seafoods

Stephen Brown Landauer

Brian Young British Frozen Foods Federation

Simon Rilatt Trident Seafoods

Peter Doswell Fastnet

Chris Lamb Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board - Observer

Paul Williams Seafish

Jon Harman Seafish

Malcolm Large Seafish

Tricia Jordan Seafish – minute taker

Apologies:

Gary Warner Warner’s Fish Merchants

1. Welcome and Introductions

The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting. He confirmed that he would be

chairing the first two meetings, after which, he would handover to the designated Chair,

Brian Young. Chris Lamb was attending the meeting as an observer.

2. Introduction to the Panel

2.1 Panel Role

The Chairman outlined the role of the panel:

Panels knowledge and expertise on their particular sectoral interest

Select and prioritise work programmes to achieve the Seafish corporate

objectives, considering the cost applications

Page 2 of 5

2.2 Terms of Reference

This will be discussed later.

2.3 Relationship between Panels and Board

The Seafish Board, appointed by Defra, has the ultimate responsibility for the

strategic direction and governance of Seafish and the Panels are there to provide

advice to the Board, particularly on areas of work and budget priorities. The

Panels must follow the strategic direction set by the Board and, within this, give

guidance to the Board on the scope, objectives and outcomes of work

programmes, and on appropriate expenditure and timelines. The Panels will

need to take into consideration that the benefits provided by the work

programmes should be proportional to the levy input from that sector.

3. Strategy

3.1 Landscape – relationship between panels

Paul Williams (PW) gave a presentation on the strategy.

Stephen Brown (SB) asked for a split of the £8m levy. PW advised £2m on

catching sector and £6m on imports. Jon Harman (JH) stated that two-thirds of

the UK catch was exported. Peter Stagg (PS) enquired what work had been

done with UK consumers on promotional and research in UK. JH pointed out

that each part of industry had their own agenda and the Panel chairs would try to

bring together a co-ordinated strategy. The Chairman reiterated that all issues

were to be transparent and to find ways of solving them.

3.2 Resources

PW pointed out that the decisions the panel members made would feed through

to spend and the overall cost of levy, which would become more apparent at the

next meeting.

Brian Young (BY) pointed out that there was a third factor which was time. JH

advised that there was a timeline. Seafish are due to undergo an independent

review in March 2014. PW confirmed that:

a new 3 year plan to be launched by October this year

Page 3 of 5

define a one year budget and work plan

Government review early 2014 (demonstrate working to plan and

providing benefits)

PW stated that Defra where not inclined to change the levy every year. Should

any change in levy occur, an amendment to the Statutory Instrument would be

required and this is not likely to happen till late 2013 early 2014. JH pointed out

that there were still a lot of anomalies in the 1981 Act, but changing the Act

would require parliamentary time and would prove to be difficult.

SB enquired whether Seafish lobbied Government. PW advised Seafish are an

arms length body and are not able to lobby Government or EU. Seafish can

inform but not represent.

Simon Rilatt (SR) enquired whether there where any organisations similar to

Seafish in other Member States. PW confirmed that there were similar, although

not identical, organisations in France, Norway, Iceland and Spain.

4. Issues

Three cloud posters acted as aide memoire for panel members to put down on post it

notes the issues/activities they would like to see Seafish doing. These were then sorted

into categories followed by discussion noting the top priorities of work Seafish should be

involved in.

5. Sector Priorities

See attached spreadsheet.

The top four were EU legislation, Reputation Management, Consumer Protection, and

Food Security.

5.1 EU Legislation

There is a need to be more involved at EU level. There is a requirement for a

person to be based in Brussels.

Page 4 of 5

5.2 Reputation Management

BY pointed out that the reputation of the industry must be upheld not that of

Seafish. Industry would be very happy to see positive side of the industry in the

media.

Bill Mooney (BM) stated that if levy payers were emailed Seafish responses to

the media as least this would be a way of showing what has been done and more

direct in touching base with levy payers. PS pointed out that Seafish have to be

very accurate when dealing with the media. PW advised that Seafish’s new

Head of Communications, Chris Middleton was currently preparing a strategy on

dealing with media, government, and industry.

5.3 Consumer Promotion

At present Seafish are targeting mums with the message “Fish is easy” as mums

are frightened to prepare fish. SN stated that it would be an idea to get into

schools to teach benefits of fish, how it is caught etc. A good package to get

onto the school curricula as the youngsters are our future so there are many

benefits to doing this.

The Chairman pointed out that Food Standards Agency (FSA) devised a “eat well

plate”. JH advised that Seafish had just signed up with British Nutrition

Foundation which buys Seafish a platform to work on schools. PS advised to

contact chefs, particularly trainee chefs as they are the future. JH pointed out

that Seafish run Young Chef of the Year with 18 colleges involved.

BM referred to exotic seafood. He supplies Chinese and Indian restaurants and

has talked with similar suppliers who do not think Seafish is value for money. It

may be an opportunity to meet with 5 or 6 import distributors to discuss further.

There was a debate on what was meant by exotic seafood. SR pointed out that

pangasius was Europe’s third biggest import. PW asked where could Seafish

have influence. BM advised that there were legislation problems for example

with weight and glaze levels.

5.4 Food Security – Waste Benefits

SR reported that there was a lack of policy, tariffs penalise imports and yield

utilisation. PS referred to 2 a week. It was agreed that Seafish should push the

fish as food line with government and media as imports are part of the solution to

food security.

Page 5 of 5

6. Next Steps

A work programmes pack will be circulated to panel members in due course with

feedback required by early August.

The next meeting will be held on Tuesday 7 August 2012 at Doncaster Racecourse.

The Chairman asked the panel members whether the Terms of Reference were fit for

purpose. No amendments were required.

The Chairman also put to the panel members whether there were any gaps or whether

a processor should be appointed to the panel to add value. It was identified that there

was a lack of a true processor in the membership, although FDF represented this

section.

7. Any Other Business

JH advised that a Panel web page would be created on the Seafish website displaying

a list of the panel members together with their biographies. There was no objection to

this from the panel members

The meeting closed at 3.05pm.