1 Collection and use
of fisheries statistics
| (28574)
8650/07
COM(07) 196
| Draft Council Regulation concerning the establishment of a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy
|
| Legal base | Article 37EC; consultation; QMV
|
| Document originated | 18 April 2007
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 26 April 2007
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 16 May 2007
|
| Previous Committee Report | None, but see footnote
|
| To be discussed in Council | No date set
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information awaited
|
Background
1.1 Fisheries management of the kind carried out under the Common
Fisheries Policy (CFP) requires an informed assessment of its
economic, biological and technical aspects, and Council Regulation
(EC) No 1543/2000[1] established
a new framework for the collection and handling of the relevant
data at the appropriate level needed to evaluate it. In particular,
it covers the such areas as the catches (including discards) for
each stock by vessel group, geographic area and time period; changes
in fishing power and the activities of various parts of the fleet;
the monitoring of prices, as well as landings; and evaluations
of the economic state of the catching and processing sectors,
covering income, production costs and employment. It also provides
for the Community to make a financial contribution of up to 50%
of the costs incurred by the Member States in carrying out the
necessary national programmes.
1.2 According to the Commission, a number of shortcomings
have since been identified in these arrangements, and it has therefore
put forward in this document a number of proposals addressing
these, and seeking to make the system less burdensome.
The current document
1.3 More specifically, the Commission proposes the
following changes:
- that the information collected
should in future be extended to include aquaculture, recreational
fishing, and the impact of fishing on the marine ecosystem;
- that any Community financial contribution to
the costs involved should in future be conditional on quality
control and compliance with agreed quality standards, with the
Commission having the power to reduce the level of assistance
by up to 25% of the total annual cost of a national programme;
- that it should have increased access to the data
collected, and that the range of end-users with a right to access
should also be extended;
- that access to business premises should be given
for the collection of data.
The Government's view
1.4 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 16 May 2007,
the Minister for Local Environment, Marine and Animal Welfare
at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr
Ben Bradshaw) says that the UK supports the principles behind
the proposal, and some of its detailed aspects. However, he also
expresses a number of reservations. First, he points out that,
although the point could be considered in any subsequent implementing
provisions, the proposal itself does not address the fact that
there are occasions where Member States do not provide in sufficient
detail the information required by the Commission and international
scientific groups to carry out stock assessments and other related
analyses.
1.5 On the other hand, he also says that other aspects
of the proposal — notably the extended obligation on Member
States to respond to requests from users — could lead to
an increase in the level of resources which they would need to
deploy, whilst others — such as requirement on businesses
to provide access for the collection of data — may cut across
existing Community and national legislation in both the fisheries
area and those of data protection and freedom of information.
The Minister notes that, despite these concerns, the Commission
does not consider that an impact assessment is needed, and says
that the UK intends to pursue these points during the further
discussions planned in Brussels on the proposal, and in those
on the detailed implementing provisions. He also says that the
main impact within the UK is likely to fall on authorities rather
than industry, and that, although there could be some increased
requirements on businesses, a Regulatory Impact Assessment is
not needed on this proposal at the moment.
Conclusions
1.6 We note that the Government has a number of
concerns over aspects of this proposal, and that it will be pursuing
these in discussions in Brussels. Consequently, although we are
drawing the document to the attention of the House, we are holding
it under scrutiny, pending further information on these points.
In particular, before we feel able to clear the document, we would
like the Government to clarify the extent to which what is proposed
will impact on the industry.
1 OJ No. L 176, 15.7.00, p.1. (20655) 12347/99 and
(20662) 12350/99: see HC 23-xix (1999-2000), para 12 (24 May 2000). Back
|
