Mr.
Carmichael: I shall make just a few brief comments. Given
that the November Council has already dealt with the matter, as the
Minister observed, it is interesting that the Scrutiny Committee should
have recommended it for today’s debate. However, we are where we
are. An expression about stable doors and horses springs to mind, but I
say to the Minister that if we are not to have wasted our time
completely this afternoon, he must listen to and bear in mind the
representations that have been made when he draws up the statutory
instruments that bring the regulations into force. It is on that point
that I shall focus.
As I indicated to the Minister
in my question, the workability and the fairness of the regulations
require some recognition that sometimes computers fail. I wonder
whether it may be necessary to keep alive the old crafts of pen and
paper and, in the event of a failure of the reporting technology,
keeping a log book of the sort with which we are all so painfully
familiar. The Minister knows that the penalties are quite severe for a
skipper who is guilty of misreporting. My recollection is that at least
five and a half years ago, when I dealt with such matters in Banff
sheriff court, one rarely saw a fine of less than £1,000, and
that was generally for a charge of negligent misreporting. When the
misreporting was found to be wilful, the penalties were rarely less
than £5,000. On present margins, that is a significant chunk out
of any fishing boat’s take.
In recent times we have made
great progress in controlling fish merchants. As the Minister and I
have observed already, we can rejoice in the ending of a practice that
we always denied really happened: the landing of black fish. In that
context, the point that the hon. Member for Leominster made about the
cost-benefit analysis—who bears the cost and who receives the
benefit—becomes particularly pertinent. If the fisheries
protection agencies are to become the main beneficiaries of this
exercise, there should be some recognition of that fact by the way in
which the regulations are implemented or funded. That will be
particularly important when the Minister reviews their application to
vessels that are 15 m or over, because they operate on different
margins from vessels of 24 m or more. The type of sums that have been
mentioned, although not in themselves massive, are problematic from
time to time, and sensitivity will be required.
The hon. Member for Leominster
also raised questions about the sharing of information with other
member states. That is pertinent, particularly when one considers the
way in which the pelagic industry fishes throughout different fisheries
and lands in Shetland, the north-east of Scotland or Denmark. If the
proper policing of that industry is to continue, information sharing
will be important. I recollect spending many afternoons in this room
serving on the Standing Committee on the Crime (International
Co-operation) Act 2003. I presume that that Act gives the Minister and
other member states the necessary power to share information but, if
the regulations are to be operated effectively, it might be as well for
the Minister to ensure that he has those powers before introducing
statutory
instruments. 5.5
pm
Mr.
Bradshaw: We have had a constructive debate. In my
concluding remarks I shall address the points that were raised by the
hon. Members for Orkney and Shetland and for
Leominster. A fair
reading of the motion makes it clear thatthe proposal is not
simply intended to make it easierto enforce fishing rules. It
mentions improved management, from which fishermen will benefit, and
the importance of good management and enforcement for the long-term
sustainability of fish stocks. I hope that we all share that objective,
particularly the fishermen, because we are discussing their future and
that of their sons and grandsons.
As has been acknowledged in the
debate, enforcement has improved in the past 18 months or so, through
the requirement for the registration of first buyers and sellers. We
debated that measure at great length and put it through in the face of
stiff opposition from some sectors of the fishing industry, but it is
now welcomed by virtually everyone in the industry as one of the best
things to have happened to them for years. It has squeezed out the
black fish and raised prices, and it has led to good times in many
fishing ports upand down the country. The proposal is a
further improvement on
that. Cost was
mentioned by both hon. Gentlemen. Of course there is potential for
financial instrument for fisheries guidance grants to be made available
for some of the technology. However, I must sound a note of caution in
that respect, because when we introduced compulsory tamper-proof VMS,
the requirement applied to every vessel. In the present case, most
vessels already have the hardware. It could strike people as a bit
unfair if help were made available to those who had not bothered to get
it. We must consider that
carefully.
Bill
Wiggin: What is not universally available is the software.
Will the Minister consider that
instead?
Mr.
Bradshaw: Again, that has not been ruled out. The costs
are relatively low and benefits will accrue not just to the inspection
regime, but to the fishermen themselves. They will be freed from
laborious paper-based log and registration
systems.
Mr.
Goodwill: If the Minister remembers, I made a point about
trying to incentivise early adoption. It would be difficult to justify
giving grants for something that is compulsory, but the Minister might
like to even out the introduction of the system and help equipment
manufacturers to meet the delivery timetable, to encourage fishermen to
be ahead of the
game.
Mr.
Bradshaw: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely sensible
suggestion, and I will be happy to consider it. It will have to be
considered alongside the other demands on financial instrument for
fisheries guidance funds, but the point about incentivisation is good
and I will consider
it. The hon. Member
for Orkney and Shetland asked during the question and answer session
what will happen if something goes wrong with the computer. A paper
back-up will be needed, but if something were to go wrong with the
transmission there is no reason why records could not be kept on the
computer on board and then downloaded when the ship
docked. We have had a
good debate, and I am pleased with the widespread support for the
motion. Question
put and agreed
to. Resolved, 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. Committee
rose at nine minutes past Five
o’clock.
| 
