3.FISHERIES: CATCHES, QUOTAS AND EFFORT
LIMITATION 2003
(a)
(23079)
15245/01
COM(01) 724
|
Draft Council Regulation establishing measures for the recovery of cod and hake stocks.
|
(b)
(24091)
15246/02
COM(02) 727
|
Draft Council Regulation fixing for 2003 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where limitations in catch are required.
|
|
|
| Legal base: | Article 37 EC; qualified majority voting
|
| |
| Department: | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration: | Minister's letter of 18 March 2003
|
| Previous Committee Report: | (a) HC 152-xxii (2001-02), paragraph 13 (20 March 2002), HC 152-xxxvii (2001-02), paragraph 2 (17 July 2002), HC 63-v (2002-03), paragraph 3 (18 December 2002) and HC 63-vii (2002-03), paragraph 1 (15 January 2003)
(b) HC 63-vii (2002-03), paragraph 1 (15 January 2003)
|
| Agreed in Council: | 20 December 2002
|
| Committee's assessment: | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision: | (Both) Debate recommendation withdrawn; cleared
|
Background
3.1 Each year, the Fisheries Council agrees the Total
Allowable Catches (TACs) for particular fish stocks in the following
calendar year, based on advice from the Advisory Committee on
Fisheries Management (ACFM) of the International Council for the
Exploration of the Sea (ICES), and of the Commission's Scientific
and Technical Committee for Fisheries. These annual proposals
habitually present scrutiny difficulties, in that official texts
are very often unavailable, requiring us to rely substantially
on the Explanatory Memorandum provided by the Government. On this
occasion, however, these usual difficulties were compounded by
the fact that the lateness of the Commission's proposals (document
(b)) made it impossible for the Government to supply an Explanatory
Memorandum prior to their adoption by the Council on 20 December
2002 as Regulation 2341/2002.[6]
As a result, we were not able to consider the proposals until
15 January 2003.
3.2 In noting that their late arrival had made meaningful
parliamentary scrutiny well nigh impossible, we nevertheless recommended
that the proposals should be debated on the Floor of the House
along with the recovery plans for cod and hake, in order to give
Members the opportunity to question the Government on the implications
of the measures which have been taken. We also noted that the
proposals on TACs (but not the recovery plans) formed part of
a motion on fisheries which would be before the House on 16 January.
Minister's latter of 18 March 2003
3.3 We have now received a letter of 18 March 2003 from
the Minister, suggesting that, although strictly speaking our
recommendation still lies on the table, it has in practice been
met by the debate on 16 January. In view of this, he says that,
although he is always keen for pressing fisheries issues to be
properly debated, it would not represent the best use of parliamentary
time for the TACs and quotas to be considered a second time, when
further key issues are imminent and will need to be debated. He
therefore asks whether we would be prepared in the circumstances
to agree that a further debate need not be arranged.
Conclusion
3.4 Given the background here, we accept that further
consideration of the 2003 TACs and quotas would be unnecessary,
and we are therefore content to regard that proposal as cleared
by the debate held on 16 January. The position on the recovery
measures for cod and hake is slightly different, in that this
document did not form part of the take-note motion on which the
TACs were debated. Having said that, the two documents are closely
linked, and we understand that the Commission has in hand further
recovery measures for cod and hake to replace those in document
(a), which were adopted on an emergency basis. In view of this,
we are now content to withdraw our debate recommendation for the
latter document too and to clear it. However, this makes it all
the more important that information on these further recovery
measures should be provided sufficiently promptly to enable meaningful
parliamentary scrutiny to take place.
6
OJ No. L.356, 31.12.02, p.12. Back
|
