Mr.
Bradshaw: They would be monitored exactly as EU vessels
would be; there is exactly the same requirement on Norwegian vessels.
Indeed, since the first rules on the vessel monitoring system were
introduced, the measures on boats have been tightened up with new,
tamper-proof vessel monitoring systems. As the hon. Gentleman will be
aware, some fishermen back then were still getting around the rules by
switching off their machines or tampering with them. One of the reasons
why there is that extra provision for member states to use satellite
monitoring is that it will be an extra tool for that sort of
situation.
Bill
Wiggin: I am grateful for the Minister’s offer of a
letter in response to my previous question.
I should like to take the issue
a bit further. Using remote sensing technology, will one member state
be able to track vessels from another? If it suspected them of fishing
illegally, in what circumstances could it
intervene?
Mr.
Bradshaw: We will certainly have the capacity to
intervene—we already do with satellite-based vessel monitoring.
If a problem arose in our own waters, we could intervene; outside our
waters, we could do so in collaboration with a neighbouring member
state.
Mr.
Williams: Britain has a good record of enforcing against
illegal fishing. A number of high-profile cases have been reported
recently. The Minister says that our fishing fleet already has the
technology, or is on the way to getting it, for the regulations. How
confident is he that other nations’ fishing fleets are as well
prepared?
Mr.
Bradshaw: I cannot speak on behalf of other member states.
I imagine that, as the hon. Gentleman will know if he has had much to
do with the fishing industry in his part of the world, the technology
on fishing boats is pretty impressive these days. That holds true
wherever boats are in the EU. Although the hon. Gentleman is right to
say that our compliance now is good we should not be complacent. We
were under threat of infraction proceedings from the European
Commission for a considerable period. France was subjected to those
proceedings and, as a result, incurred record fines from the European
Union—a record for any country for any non-compliance with EU
rules. We have done well, but it has involved a lot of work and it has
taken a while. However, we must not be complacent as there is still
more that we can
do.
Mr.
Carmichael: Can the Minister give me some assurance that
when it comes to the practical implementation of the regulations, the
prosecuting authorities—the Procurator Fiscal Service in
Scotland
and whoever prosecutes such cases in England and
Wales—will be fully consulted to ensure that all the information
garnered in this way will be admissiblein a criminal
prosecution? Any information can be gathered, but if it is not
admissible in a form recognisable by the court, it will do no-one any
good.
Mr.
Bradshaw: I certainly undertake to speak to my Scottish
colleagues to ensure that that is the case. I am aware that there have
been problems in the past in Scotland with the requirement for a higher
burden of proof for some fisheries offences. That is certainly
something we need to be aware of.
Bill
Wiggin: Will there be any extra costs to the fisheries
monitoring centre of the Marine Fisheries Agency and how will those
costs be met—through an existing budget or by new
money?
Mr.
Bradshaw: There will, we estimate, be an up-front cost of
approximately £200,000 to the Marine Fisheries Agency to develop
the mainframe computer system. However, in the long-term, costs will be
saved because of the reduction in paperwork for fishermen.It
should also save time and costs in many of our inspection ports around
the country, because inspectors who at the moment spend a long time
filling out forms will be able to do everything by the touch of a
button.
Bill
Wiggin: The Marine Fisheries Agency has recently had
£1.722 million of its budget cut by DEFRA. That is a 6 per cent.
reduction. Are there any more cuts planned and how will they affect
fisheries
enforcement?
Mr.
Bradshaw: I do not think the hon. Gentleman’s
figures are correct, but I will check and write to
him.
Bill
Wiggin: To implement article 4 on page 50 of the document
bundle, what improvements will the UK’s fisheries monitoring
centres have to make and at what
cost?
Mr.
Bradshaw: I think that I answered that in the question
before last. An investment of £200,000 will be made in the
mainframe
computer.
Bill
Wiggin: When does the Minister expect the detailed
implementation rules from the Commission to be
produced?
Mr.
Bradshaw: I have already answered that question: sometime
in the next 12
months.
Bill
Wiggin: I keep asking the questions because I still do not
get the answers, but I am grateful to the Minister for
trying. We have had a
positive answer to the question whether our fisheries management centre
would beable to use the technology to track non-UK vessels.
However, regarding the exemption for remote sensing in article 4 of the
regulation, can the Minister confirm whether he has any plans to
introduce remote sensing or make use of the
exemption?
Mr.
Bradshaw: We will make that decision on a case-by-case
basis. Such technology is quite expensive, but in a very serious case
where we expect some potentially criminal behaviour, we may decide that
it is cost-effective to use the technology. However, it is good that we
have the exemption and that this new development is only voluntary and
not obligatory, because if we can introduce remote sensing more
cheaply, we would prefer to do so.
Bill
Wiggin: I am grateful for that answer, but can I press a
little further? Article 4 says that member states will be obliged to
introduce remote sensing if there is “a cost benefit”.
Who will decide when a cost benefit
exists?
Mr.
Bradshaw: The member
state.
Bill
Wiggin: Will that be the Minister,
then?
Bill
Wiggin: Will there be any EU-wide guidelines on what
actually constitutes a cost benefit under article
4?
Mr.
Bradshaw: Not that I am aware of. It will be up to the
member
state.
Bill
Wiggin: Does the Minister know which member states, if
any, will adopt the remote sensing
provisions?
Mr.
Bradshaw: No, I cannot speak on behalf of other member
states.
Bill
Wiggin: Article 5(6) of the regulation—we are
getting better at knowing all about it—states that detailed
rules will be drawn up relating to exemptions to “submit
electronic landing declarations”. Does the Minister have any
idea what those exemptions will
be?
Mr.
Bradshaw: Not at this stage, I am afraid, but I will write
to the hon. Gentleman as they are drawn
up.
Bill
Wiggin: In what circumstances does the Minister envisage
that information obtained by one member state will be exchanged with
another, and what safeguards will protect that
information?
Mr.
Bradshaw: Again, that will depend on each member state,
but we have extremely good levels of co-operation on enforcement with
other EU member states. It is in the interests of all our fishermen
that, to put it crudely, one member state’s fishermen should not
get one over on
another’s.
Bill
Wiggin: How frequently does the Minister anticipate that
software and hardware will need to be
upgraded?
Mr.
Bradshaw: I do not anticipate that it will need to be
upgraded soon, because the system will be new, but if the hon.
Gentleman will allow me, I will write to him with a bit more detail
after the
debate.
Bill
Wiggin: Four letters so far. I am most grateful to the
Minister. He is being very kind and helpful. I am not pulling his
leg—I am genuinely grateful. If a member state is free to
determine individually the format for the transmission of data used by
vessels carrying its flag, as detailed in paragraph (6b), can he
explain whether different systems operating in
different countries will make it difficult for member states to share
information?
Mr.
Bradshaw: It will make sense for member states to format
the information so that it is easily shareable with other member
states. That is what happens at the
moment.
The
Chairman: If no more Members wish to ask questions, we
will proceed to debate the motion. I call the Minister.
Motion made, and Question
proposed, That the
Committee takes note of European Union Document No. 14181/04, Draft
Council Regulation on electronic recording and reporting of fishing
activities and on means of remote sensing; and supports the
Government's objective of ensuring that this proposal delivers improved
management and control, thereby contributing to the long-term
sustainability of fish stocks.—[Mr.
Bradshaw.] 4.52
pm
Bill
Wiggin: For more than two years, the draft regulations
have been in circulation. Only now, after they have been agreed in
Brussels, can we finally debate them here. The Minister himself admits
in the bundle that his Department’s record on ensuring that
scrutiny is carried out needs improvement. It would be helpful if he
could enlighten us on his planned changes to internal procedures to
prevent that delay from happening again.
I understand that at its
November meeting, the Council decided that it would finalise the text
and adopt the regulation at a future meeting. Although the Minister may
now be able to do little to change the regulation, I hope that he will
consider the comments made today, especially those about the costs to
British fishermen, when he deals with requests for funding.
Turning to the motion, the
electronic recording and reporting of fishing activities ought in
principle to be beneficial to fisheries management. Good-quality
information depends on what is put into the system, whether by
fishermen at sea or by a fisheries manager typing out figures from a
handwritten piece of paper. I should be grateful if the Minister told
us what actions he will be taking to ensure that the information is of
good quality in the first place. What safety checks will apply? What
steps will he take to enforce the new rules? I hope that he has some
powerful points to make and that the regulations will work for us as a
deterrent to those planning to fish
illegally. Although
the measures are broadly welcome, some issues still need to be
addressed. The regulation was devised to improve management, control,
enforcement and sustainability of fish stocks, but that presumes an
improvement in the fishing industry’s profitability. The
regulation may not deliver a corresponding increase in returns relative
to the set-up costs. Consequently, the regulation has many practical
implications that need to be considered, most of which relate to the
cost. The costs of
implementation have been estimated at between €1,500 and
€2,000 per vessel for hardware, €1,000 for software and
between €425 and €750 for transmission costs each year.
As things stand, the fishing industry is concerned that it will bear
the brunt of the costs. It would be helpful if the Minister could offer
the industry some sort of reassurance. I know that
he has had some success in delaying the phasing in
of the electronic recording and transmitting obligations, but
considering that the real beneficiaries of the proposals will be
fisheries managers, enforcers andthe EU, surely they should be
paying rather than the fishermen. The regulations will primarily
make enforcement easier and the fact that the fishing industry does not
get a mention in the Minister’s motion seems to support that
point. Fishermen are already likely to suffer cuts in cod
quotas—I am sure that hon. Members will discuss that in the
forthcoming annual fisheries debate—and we must therefore be
certain of the benefits before adding the regulatory costs; otherwise
the measures will not help to sustain the fishing industry.
The costs to the fisheries
management centre must also be considered. Perhaps the Minister should
consider lobbying for EU funds to cover them. A huge amount of the
€1.3 billion EU fisheries budget goes to Spain, whereas the UK
gets less than 5 per cent. of that money. We are an island surrounded
by fishing grounds and we are one of the EU’s largest net
contributors; we clearly deserve a better deal. We should not forget
that fishermen from other EU countries have a far worse record on
illegal fishing than we
do.
Mr.
Carmichael: Will the hon. Gentleman enlighten the
Committee about the operation of the Fontainebleau agreement in
relation to any money that comes in the way that he
seeks?
Bill
Wiggin: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point and
that might well be the sticking point. I hope he agrees, however, that
that does not mean that the Minister should not try to get that money.
He will probably remember that when we had the difficulty with bird
flu, the EU offered money for our poultry industry but unfortunately
DEFRA did not claim any. I hope that that will not be the case in this
instance. I am sure that he will agree that a little extra EU money to
assist with the implementation of the regulation would not go
unnoticed. I am
concerned that the measures may not be as effective as envisaged,
especially if there is a lack of co-ordination between member states in
implementing and enforcing the regulation. The regulation is about
using technology and information to manage, control and enforce
fisheries but it does not make that exchange of information easy. On
one hand it gives member states the freedom to determine
“the formats for transmission of
data used by vessels flying its
flag”, and on the other
it
stipulates: “The
formats which national competent authorities will use to exchange
information for control and inspection purposes should be defined in
detailed implementing
rules.” So
while individual member states can use theirown formats for
transmitting information, there willbe rules to determine the
format for exchanging information between states. Would not it be more
sensible to have one format for everyone?
Given the Government’s
terrible track record in introducing computer systems and the problems
that have been created in the past, despite the SHEEL and
IMPAST— improving fisheries monitoring through
integrating passive and active satellite-based
technologies—trials, I cannot be confident in their ability to
deliver. Failure to deliver will be all the more likely if we end up
using a variety of different formats to transmit and exchange the
information. Moreover, the regulations will
be most effective only if the member states whose vessels are
predominantly responsible for illegal practices sign up to the full
package. With that in mind, I draw to the Committee’s attention
article 4 of the regulation, which provides for the use of remote
sensing where there is evidence of a cost benefit. The implementation
of remote sensing seems to be discretionary. As the Government are one
of the most enthusiastic in Europe when it comes to adopting new
legislation and often introduce it before other member states, I am
concerned that while we may fully implement article 4, other member
states—perhaps those whose vessels are largely responsible for
illegal fishing—may not. Furthermore, I am still not certain as
to what will constitute a cost benefit. The Minister is going to write
to me about that. If there is a cost benefit to enforcers, fisheries
managers and fish stocks in implementing remote sensing, that adds
weight to my earlier argument that fishermen should not foot the bill
for introducing the regulation. Will the Minister clarify
that? There are also
uncertainties and concerns about article 5 and the detailed rules that
will be laid down at some point. There are no clues in the document
bundle to what we can expect in the detailed rules. All we know is that
they relate to the content and formatting of the information that will
be exchanged between competent authorities, the extension of the
electronic reporting obligation to smaller vessels, and the exemptions
to reduce administrative burdens on operators. Other than that, the
real details are missing, without which we may find that costs will be
higher than expected. It would also have been useful to be able to
scrutinise the detail of the rules with this regulation because we are
left guessing what might be in them and about their possible impact on
fisheries managers and the industry.
The motion states
that the Government’s objective is to ensure
that “this
proposal delivers improved management and control, thereby contributing
to the long-term sustainability of fish
stocks.” While the
proposal is not counter-productive, I suspect that no significant
long-term progress can ever be achieved until the practice of
discarding is stopped. Until that day, the changes that we are
discussing can only improve the data on fishing grounds and fish that
are landed, leaving the true catch wide open to
speculation.
5 pm
| 
