28 Infringements of the Common Fisheries
Policy in 2004
| (27704)
11737/06
COM(06) 387
| Commission Communication: Behaviour which seriously infringed the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy in 2004
|
| Legal base | — |
| Document originated | 14 July 2006
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 19 July 2006
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 21 August 2006
|
| Previous Committee Report | None
|
| To be discussed in Council | See para 28.5 below
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
28.1 Under the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), the Commission has
since 1993 been required to report from time to time on the way
in which the various control measures have been applied by the
Member States. This requirement was amended in 1999 to oblige
Member States to report annually on types of behaviour which seriously
infringe the rules of the CFP, and for which proportional, effective
and dissuasive penalties should be imposed. This Communication
from the Commission —
the fifth in the present series —
summarises the information relating to proceedings initiated in
2004.
The current document current document
28.2 The Communication contains a short description
of the information provided by each Member State. Subject to the
caveat that the accuracy of the data varies greatly, and that
the figures should therefore be treated with caution, it points
out that:
- the overall number of cases
reported by Member States was 9,660: this compares with the pre-enlargement
figures of 9,502 in 2003, and 6,756 in 2002;
- 80% of these infringements occurred in three
Member States (Spain, Italy and Portugal, though these also have
the highest number of vessels);[72]
- as in previous years, a significant proportion
of infringements concerned unlawful fishing, either without the
necessary authorisation or in prohibited areas: other infringements
mainly concerned the use of prohibited fishing methods and falsifying
the data required in control documents;
- although Member States use different procedures,
criminal or administrative, to sanction infringements, the majority
of cases were subject to administrative proceedings;
- a penalty was imposed in 82% of cases, but there
were significant differences between Member States;[73]
- although the average level of fine (€2,272)
was below that in 2003 (which in turn had been much higher than
that in previous years), there were significant differences between
Member States, depending in part on whether returns included seizure
of catches and/or gear; and
- the Commission believes that the suspension of
fishing licences would be an effective way of increasing compliance,
and that the majority of Member States should use this approach
more often.
The Commission also notes problems over the consistency
and accuracy of this information with the Member States, and highlights
the need to ensure that penalties provide an effective deterrent
related to the value of the fish catches concerned.
The Governments view Governments view
28.3 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 21 August 2006,
the Minister for Nature Conservation and Fisheries at the Department
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Ben Bradshaw) says
that the UK welcomes publication of the Communication, which he
believes makes a valuable contribution to ensuring greater transparency
of fisheries enforcement across the Community, and to future discussions
on control and enforcement within the framework of the reformed
CFP.
28.4 He also notes that, in the UK, fisheries infringements
are subject to criminal proceedings, and that, for the majority
of serious offences, the Courts may impose a fine of up to £50,000,
order the seizure of fishing gear, impose an additional fine up
to the value of the fish involved, and, in certain circumstances,
suspend or revoke a fishing vessel licence. He says that the majority
of the 118 infringements reported by the UK were associated with
the falsification of catch data recorded in logbooks and other
documents, and that (unlike other Member States) there were very
few infringements linked to fishing without a licence, unauthorised
fishing or using prohibited fishing methods. He also points out
that the average fine of €13,099 in the UK reflects a number
of cases where substantial fines were imposed, was towards the
top of the range, and was well in excess of the Community average.
28.5 The Minister says that the document has been
submitted for information, and that the Council is expected to
note its contents at one of its forthcoming meetings.
Conclusion
28.6 This Communication does not itself contain
any proposals for legislation, but it nevertheless deals with
an important aspect of the Common Fisheries Policy. For that reason,
although we are clearing it, we think it right to draw it to the
attention of the House, not least because of the clear evidence
of shortcomings in the data provided by the various Member States,
and the marked differences between the level of penalties imposed
where infringements have occurred.
72 The UK, with 7,034 vessels, accounted for 76 (1.1%)
infringements. Back
73
For example, 100% of infringements were the subject of sanctions
in Cyprus, Estonia, Germany, Latvia, Poland, Spain and the UK,
but only 17% in Sweden. Back
|
