The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Chairman:
Mr.
Eric
Martlew
Barlow,
Ms Celia
(Hove)
(Lab)
Bradshaw,
Mr. Ben
(Minister for Local Environment, Marine and
Animal
Welfare)
Carmichael,
Mr. Alistair
(Orkney and Shetland)
(LD)
Cunningham,
Tony
(Workington)
(Lab)
Goodwill,
Mr. Robert
(Scarborough and Whitby)
(Con)
Holloway,
Mr. Adam
(Gravesham)
(Con)
McCafferty,
Chris
(Calder Valley)
(Lab)
Mudie,
Mr. George
(Leeds, East)
(Lab)
Salter,
Martin
(Reading, West)
(Lab)
Stuart,
Mr. Graham
(Beverley and Holderness)
(Con)
Wiggin,
Bill
(Leominster)
(Con)
Williams,
Mr. Roger
(Brecon and Radnorshire)
(LD)
Winnick,
Mr. David
(Walsall, North)
(Lab)
Emily
Commander, Committee
Clerk
attended the
Committee
The
following also attended, pursuant to Standing Order No.
119(5):
MacNeil,
Mr. Angus
(Na h-Eileanan an Iar)
(SNP)
George,
Andrew
(St. Ives) (LD)
European
Standing
Committee
Tuesday 12
December
2006
[Mr.
Eric Martlew in the
Chair]
Fishing Activities (Monitoring)
[Relevant
Documents: EU Document No. 14181/04 relating to Electronic Recording
and Reporting of Fishing Activities and Means of Remote
Sensing.]
4.30
pm
The
Minister for Local Environment, Marine and Animal Welfare
(Mr. Ben Bradshaw): I regret that it was not
possible for this debate to take place before the November Fisheries
Council, where unanimous political agreement was reached on the
presidency compromise text contained in document OS 814/06, which hon.
Members have before them.
The text provides for the
following: the use of electronic logbooks and landing declarations by
over-24 m vessels 24 months after the entry intoforce of the
detailed implementing rules; the extension of the provision to over-15
m vessels after a further18 months; the use of electronic
sales notes from1 January 2009 by registered buyers and
sellers of first sale fish who have an annual turnover of more than
€400,000; and member states to have capacity to use remote
sensing from 1 January 2009, but only where there is clear evidence of
the cost benefit.
All
members of the Committee would agree that compliance with fisheries
legislation is extremely important for profitability and
sustainability. The introduction of the buyers and sellers requirement
into the UK, which was done in the teeth of considerable opposition
from some sectors of the industry, has resulted in an 8 per cent.
increase in the value of fish landings in the UK in the past year,
partly due to the squeezing out of illegal fish.
Electronic recording systems,
or e-logbooks for short, offer a further opportunity to use new
technology to improve the effectiveness of our enforcement and, at the
same time, to deliver significant reductions in the administrative
burdens placed on both fishermen and fisheries administrations.
Although we are enthusiastic about the opportunities that that the
proposal offers, we were concerned to ensure both that it worked and
that we had enough time to make the necessary changes. The successfully
completed secure and harmonised European electronic logbooks, or SHEEL,
trials have answered the first of those points. I also believe that the
lead-in times agreed at the Council in November will give us enough
time to develop our systems to achieve the maximum possible
improvements.
Remote
sensing is the means to detect the presence of fishing vessels using
satellite imagery. It is not a major element of the package, but it
can, in certain circumstances, provide a useful means of
targeting
aerial or surface surveillance resources. We already
have the capability to use that technology, so the proposal has no
major implications for us.
Finally, the European Scrutiny
Committee raised concerns about the potential costs to the industry of
the new requirements. In fact, nearly all of our vessels that will be
affected already have the necessary computer hardware and will only
have to acquire the relevant software. Transmission costs should not
exceed £250 a year. I believe that the potential savings in time
and effort to the industry, given the current paper-based system, will
justify those modest additional costs.
The
Chairman: We now have until half-past 5 for questions to
the Minister. May I remind hon. Members that questions should be brief
and should be asked one at a time? I am sure that there will be ample
time for hon. Members to ask all their
questions.
Bill
Wiggin (Leominster) (Con): Thank you, Mr.
Martlew. What a pleasure it is to serve under your
chairmanship.
I thank
the Minister for his opening statement. The regulation was designed to
prevent illegal fishing. What estimate does he have of the amount of
fish that is currently caught illegally? Which member states vessels
are the worst offenders?
Mr.
Bradshaw: It is very difficult to give an estimate of the
amount of fish that is caught illegally, because by definition, such
activity is illegal. A number of estimates have been made and a number
of studies have been done. I believe that I am right in saying that the
European Commission publishes an annual reporton levels of
compliance in member states. As far asthe UK is concerned, the
situation has improved dramatically in recent years, particularly as a
result of the introduction of the requirement for the registration of
first buyers and sellers, to which I referred. That measure means that,
for the first time, there is proper traceability all the way through
the system, from the catching to the selling of the fish. As I also
said, that has squeezed out illegal landings and has benefited the
majority of fishermen, who have always acted within the law. They have
seen a robust increase in the price and value of their landings as a
result.
The
Chairman: I call Alistair Carmichael, whom I recognise,
even with the
beard.
Mr.
Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD): Thank you,
Mr. Martlew. I welcome you to the Chair.
The Minister referred to the
welcome and dramatic impact of the changes that have come into force in
relation to merchants. When he considers the extension of the provision
to boats of 15 m or more, will he factor in that benefit when doing the
cost-benefit analysis in relation to smaller boats? They will have very
different margins from boats of a larger
size.
Mr.
Bradshaw: Yes, and that is partly why the compromise
introduced the threshold for buyers and sellers and gave a longer
lead-in time for smaller vessels. However, we will certainly factor in
those differential
cost-benefits.
Mr.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD): Will there
be a period in which the industry will have to have both hard and
digitalised copies of records? Has the Minister assessed the burdens
that that would place on the
industry?
Mr.
Bradshaw: There should already be hard copies in the form
of logbooks. The proposal would simply replace the rather onerous
paper-based system with a more easily transmissible electronic one that
many fishermen already usefor example, for marketing
purposeswell in advance of the introduction of the
requirements. When we trialled the system, the fishing vessels, one of
which was from the west of Scotland in the nephrops fisheryI
cannot recall where the other one wasthe skippers were so
pleased with the results that they are already using it for their own
benefit.
Bill
Wiggin: Why has it taken more than two years for the
regulation to get this far? The original one was supposed to come into
force on 1 January. When will it actually become
law?
Mr.
Bradshaw: It has taken so long because of shared concerns
about the readiness of the software, which is why we piloted it, not
only in the UK, but in other countries. Before we voted in the Council
and committed our industry to implementation, we wanted to make sure
that it worked. Members will remember occasions on which measures have
been passed in the Council when the technology was not right. A classic
example of that is pingers and cetacean by-catch. It was sensible to
wait, and I have nothing to add to the datelines that I gave in my
original
remarks.
Mr.
Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con): On
Saturday, I had occasion to discuss the proposal with Fred Normandale,
a skipper and owner of a number of boats in Scarborough. There is an
acceptanceenthusiasm is perhaps too strong a wordin the
industry that if the proposal can help to clamp down on illegal fishing
by other member states, it is to be
welcomed.
The Minister
mentioned that there will be a lead-in time to provide sufficient time
for the technology to be installed. The problem is that some people
might wait until the last minute before making the expenditure. Has he
considered any incentives for early adoption of the technology to
ensure that not everybody does
that?
Mr.
Bradshaw: I am gratified to learn that there is already a
certain level of knowledge and recognition of the proposal, judging
from the hon. Gentlemans conversation with Mr.
Normandale. He makes an important point: although compliance in this
country is generally regarded as pretty good, the same is not true in
every EU member state. The proposal is yet another measure to help the
Commission ensure a level playing field in fisheries
enforcement.
There is
still some time to go before the detailed proposals are drawn
upit is likely to take at least another year. The 24 months and
further 18 months that I mentioned in my introductory remarks are in
addition to that, which should give the industry plenty of time to
prepare. As I said, many skippers have
adopted the technology already and simply need the
software. I suspect that many will get it well in advance of the
detailed proposals, because it will bring other
benefits.
Mr.
Carmichael: As I read them, the regulations will require
daily and real-time reporting. The Minister will be aware that from
time to time computers and telecommunications fail. Most of the boats
to which the regulations will apply earliest will be working 10-day
trips, at least. What provisions will be put in place in order to
ensure that other options will be available to skippers in the event of
technological failures, short of returning to
port?
Mr.
Bradshaw: Certainly, I want UK fisheries inspectors,
including those in Scotland, to implement the regulations sensibly and
proportionately and to bear in mind genuine problems with technology.
The critical thing is that the regulations are about making sure that
catches and landings are recorded accurately. The absolute requirement
for daily recordingsparticularly on long trips, which might
have technical problems or challengeswill, I am sure, be taken
into account by the fisheries authorities on both sides of the
border.
Mr.
Williams: The regulations require that initially the
technology should be used on vessels of more than 24 m, and then, after
an assessment, on vessels of more than 15 m. They also give the
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs the power to require
vessels of less than 15 m to use the technology if it believes that
that would be of benefit. What view has DEFRA taken on
that?
Mr.
Bradshaw: We have not yet taken a definitive view; we want
to see how the technology works on the big vessels first. The hon.
Gentleman is right to point out something that I omitted to say in my
initial remarksthat the extension of the technology to vessels
of more than 15 m will be subject to a review. That could mean that the
matter comes back to the full Council, rather than being settled in
committee as the initial stage will
be.
Bill
Wiggin: Section (6a) on page 47 states that
the
formats which
national competent authorities will use to exchange information for
control and inspection purposes should be defined in detailed
implementing rules.
Will
the Minister provide any details on those rules and when we can expect
them to be
produced?
Mr.
Bradshaw: I cannot at this stage. Those implementing rules
still need to be negotiated, and it is likely to take at least 12
months for those to be agreed and put in place. Perhaps the hon.
Gentleman could come back to me at that time. Otherwise, I promise to
write to him once we have a better idea of what those rules will
entail.
Mr.
Carmichael: May I draw the Ministers attention to
page 8 of the bundle? The second sentence in the first paragraph of the
explanatory memorandum states: Since 1992 it, that is,
the European Community,
promoted the introduction of the
satellite-based vessel monitoring system (VMS) as a tool to efficiently
control its fishing
fleet,
the
grammar is not
mine
irrespective
of where it is operating, and third country fleets when operating
within Community
waters.
What
is the position particularly in respect of Norwegian fleets operating
in the North
sea?