The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Chairman:
Mr.
Eric Illsley
Benyon,
Mr. Richard
(Newbury)
(Con)
Carmichael,
Mr. Alistair
(Orkney and Shetland)
(LD)
Cunningham,
Tony
(Workington)
(Lab)
Dobbin,
Jim
(Heywood and Middleton)
(Lab/Co-op)
Gray,
Mr. James
(North Wiltshire)
(Con)
Griffith,
Nia
(Llanelli) (Lab)
Hands,
Mr. Greg
(Hammersmith and Fulham)
(Con)
Kemp,
Mr. Fraser
(Houghton and Washington, East)
(Lab)
MacNeil,
Mr. Angus
(Na h-Eileanan an Iar)
(SNP)
Shaw,
Jonathan
(Minister for the South
East)
Southworth,
Helen
(Warrington, South)
(Lab)
Strang,
Dr. Gavin
(Edinburgh, East)
(Lab)
Wiggin,
Bill
(Leominster)
(Con)
Hannah Weston, Committee
Clerk
attended the
Committee
The following also attended,
pursuant to Standing Order No.
119(5):
Hopkins,
Kelvin
(Luton, North) (Lab)
European
Committee
Monday 31
March
2008
[Mr.
Eric Illsley
in the
Chair]
Fisheries: Control, Inspection and Sanction Systems
4.30
pm
The
Chairman:
I call a member of the European Scrutiny
Committee to make a short statement about the reasons the document has
been referred to the
Committee.
Jim
Dobbin (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab/Co-op): This is the
second Committee under the new format to which I have had to come to do
this. It is a pleasure to make this statement under your chairmanship,
Mr.
Illsley.
We
thought that it might help the Committee if I made a very short
statement to explain the background to this document and the reasons
that the European Scrutiny Committee recommended it for debate.
Conservation has been at the heart of the common fisheries policy since
it was agreed in 1983 and there is widespread agreement that if it is
to succeed, it is crucial that there be proper control and enforcement
and that any transgressions be dealt with by a penalty that recognises
the seriousness of
events.
At
the same time, there have been long-standing and genuine concerns, not
least in our fishing industry, about whether member states have
discharged their responsibilities in this area conscientiously, and
about the way in which they are supervised by the Commission. The
report by the European Court of Auditors, based on an examination of
the information available from the Commission, and from spot checks in
six member states, including the UK, is topical and timely. It is
notable also for its detailed analysis of the position and for its
recommendations for improvements. Interestingly, it also makes a number
of specific criticisms of the arrangements in the UK and is accompanied
by observations from the Commission that broadly endorse its
conclusions. The Governments explanatory memorandum addresses
UKs position. For those reasons, the European Scrutiny
Committee felt that the document raised a number of important issues
that the House would wish to consider further in
Committee.
4.32
pm
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs (Jonathan Shaw):
I am pleased to serve under your
chairmanship, Mr. Illsley. I thank my hon. Friend the Member
for Heywood and Middleton for his opening remarks as a member of the
European Scrutiny Committee. That provides a useful linkage to ensure a
joined-up approach between his Committee and those of us who debate
such matters.
I am
grateful for the opportunity to speak to the Committee about the
European Court of Auditors report, which is the first such
report looking into the
effectiveness of the common fisheries policy control, inspection and
sanction system throughout the European Community. As my hon. Friend
said, its publication is timely and coincides with an already-planned
review of the control regulations that form the basis of all
enforcement activity carried out under the CFP. It is due for review
this year as part of the Commissions three-year action plan,
which began in 2006, to simplify the
CFP.
I
preface my remarks by reminding the Committee of the 13,000 full and
part-time fishermen in the UK, the vast majority of whom are
law-abiding and understand the need to support and manage fisheries
sustainably. We owe it to those law-abiding fishermen to ensure that
enforcement activity is proportionate, effective, consistent and
carried out in a way that causes minimum disturbance, while providing a
sufficient deterrent to those tempted to breach the
rules.
Hon.
Members will be aware that the report does not make particularly
comfortable reading. It is critical of the procedures in place in all
six member states that the Court visited, including the UK. It also
criticises the Commission for failing adequately to ensure that member
states perform their enforcement responsibilities to an acceptable
level. I do not necessarily accept all the reports criticisms
of procedures in the UK. Most importantly, I would like to remind the
Committee that the report is based on visits to England in August and
November 2006. It is therefore, to some extent, backward looking, and
takes no account of the considerable improvements in procedures or new
technologies that the Marine Fisheries Agency has introduced since
then. However, we must not be complacent, and there are clear, valuable
lessons to be learned from the
report.
I will be
actively supporting the Commission over the coming months, as it
strives to put in place a new control regime that addresses the details
in the report. That will answer the calls that we have been making for
some time, for more consistent enforcement throughout the UKthe
elusive level playing fieldwhich is essential if we are to
establish a more effective framework and better compliance across
member states. We will therefore be seeking to influence the outcome,
driving forward the agenda to make sure that it achieves what we want
and is beneficial to those operating legally within the
industry.
Having
said that, we need to be careful not to overreact to the findings of
the report. Overall, the existing control regulation and the associated
legislation provide a generally sound enforcement framework, with which
fishermen and enforcement agencies are familiar. Nevertheless, the
present control framework has been in place since 1993 and, over time,
has become far too complicated and cumbersome for both industry and
Administrations. We therefore see the forthcoming review as an
opportunity to look for improvements and simplification, rather than
for a wholesale rewrite of the
rules.
Turning
to the conclusions of the report, the ECA makes some general criticisms
of the procedures in all member states that it visited. These are:
catch data are incomplete and unreliable; inspection systems do not
guarantee that infringements are effectively prevented and detected;
and, when found, infringements are not penalised sufficiently to
provide an effective deterrent. To counter those shortcomings, the
report recommends that member states should improve the quality of
their
catch data, develop more effective means of measuring the effectiveness
of inspection activities and ensure that the sanctioning authorities
are aware of the need to impose deterrent sanctions. At the same time,
the report says that the Commission should introduce electronic
recording systems as soon as possible and that the Council should
specify in regulations the elements essential to an effective
inspection and sanctions system and should reinforce the
Commissions ability to put pressure on defaulting member
states.
To its credit,
the Commission has accepted those criticisms and recommendations and,
with the full support of all member states, has set out a strategy to
deliver those required improvements. The Commission has a clear
objective to develop a control system that is more effective,
simplified and less expensive, and that delivers compliance. Much of
what it wants to achieve can be taken forward through the review of the
control regulation. A process of consultation with stakeholders has
already begun, with a view to publishing proposals in October this year
for adoption by the Council in 2009 and coming into force in
2010.
However,
the Commission feels that matters raised by the ECA are important
enough to warrant additional action by member states in the shorter
term. Such action includes: improvements in vessel monitoring systems;
implementation of electronic logbooks; improving member states
and Commission databases; better cross-checking methods; and an
increased level of sanction. I would agree with those priorities, and
the UK is well placed to deliver them. I will say no more at this
stage, but am happy to go into detail if Committee members
wish.
The Commission
has set itself an ambitious timetable both for the short-term decisions
and actions and for the review of the control regulation. However, we
are committed to modernising and strengthening the regulatory framework
to protect and preserve our marine resources. We will do everything
that we can to support the Commission in delivering on this challenging
project.
I have tried
to keep my opening remarks brief and general in nature. I am sure that
hon. Members will have lots of questions, and I will do my best to
answer
them.
The
Chairman:
We now have until 5.30 pm for questions to the
Minister, which, I remind Committee members, should be brief. It is
open to any Member, subject to my discretion, to ask a series of
related questions, one after the other, but if doing so I hope that
Members will bear in mind the interests of others, who may also wish to
pursue a sustained line of
questioning.
Bill
Wiggin (Leominster) (Con): Is the Minister aware of the
recommendations made by the Public Accounts Committee five years ago
regarding fisheries enforcement in England, which followed a National
Audit Office report? It recommended that the Department should use its
records of past infringements to identify patterns of offending
behaviour to better inform the targeting of its enforcement activities.
Why has the recommendation apparently not been acted upon and why are
the systemic checks that the Minister mentions in the explanatory
memorandum not in place already?
Jonathan
Shaw:
We have ensured that we have adopted a more targeted
approach to identify the offending fishermen or those people who are
buying black fish. We now have a vessel monitoring system, which tells
us the location of vessels over 24 m and 15m. We now register buyers
and sellers, which means that we require not just the name of the
person selling the fish but also the documentation and inventory of the
fish that is bought. Increasingly, people who buy fish do not want to
be associated with black fish. Therefore, a cross-compliance mechanism
is required, listing the people who sell and buy, and a vessel
monitoring system. In addition, we have the River class in England, as
well as vessels in Scotland and aerial
surveillance.
Kelvin
Hopkins (Luton, North) (Lab): Will my hon. Friend accept
that this report clearly demonstrates that the common fisheries policy
has been an unmitigated disaster, especially with regard to the fishing
industry?
Jonathan
Shaw:
I do not accept that. I do not know why my hon.
Friend believes that the policy has been an unmitigated disaster. Over
the years it has ensured that we have prevented stocks from being wiped
out. As the policy has developed, the relationship between Government,
science and fishermen has improved so that we have a sustainable
fisheries industry. Our fisheries policy compares favourably with other
policies and programmes relating to fisheries management across the
world. While it is not everything that we would want it to be, the
regime requires the agreement of 27 member states to ensure good
fisheries management. Fish do not recognise national borders. It is
important, therefore, that we have the science-based mechanisms in
place to ensure that stocks are sustainable; that we have something for
the fishermen to catch for their livelihoods, and for the industry; and
that the important, sensitive and fragile organisms that are in our
marine environment are
sustained.
Mr.
Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD): I caution
the Minister against rushing too quickly to defend the common fisheries
policy as it has altered over the years. The operation of the policy
has always left a great deal to be desired. However, he is right to
point out the importance of the registration of suppliers and the
impact that that has had, particularly with regard to black fish. He
will no doubt have heard, as I have, that there is virtually no black
fish to be found. What discussions has he had with the various
representative organisations such as the National Federation of
Fishermens Organisations and the Scottish Fishermens
Federation regarding the proposals, and what views have they
expressed?
Jonathan
Shaw:
We meet industry representatives and the devolved
Administrations on a regular basis. They say that it is in the fishing
industrys interests to ensure that there is a proper working
compliance system, and that the thousands of the decent and honest
fishermen who want to see sustainable stocks are not undermined by
those who seek to break the law. When people break the law, we should
introduce tough sanctions that set examples to
others.
Dr.
Gavin Strang (Edinburgh, East) (Lab): I think that the
Minister will agree that discardsfish caught out of quota that
are thrown back into the water arise from the common fisheries
policy. The report points out that the Norwegian Government do not
allow fish caught out of quota to be tossed back into the sea. That is
a wasteful aspect of the CFP. Will the Minister comment on that, and
whether we could learn something from the Norwegian
situation?
Jonathan
Shaw:
My right hon. Friend refers to paragraph 26 of the
report, and I thank him for drawing attention to it. People find
discards abhorrent, and we saw pictures on our television screens last
year of good-quality fish being thrown away. In Norway, fishermen may
not throw fish away. They receive a sum of money for the fish sold on
the market, and the remaining money goes into the public purse. The UK
is different in as much as our coast has vastly more species,
particularly in south-west England, where there are 30 or 40 different
species. Many species, if caught, have no market value, so we are not
comparing like with like. If they have no value, clearly they will not
be sold, and they will become a burden in shipping vessels
holds.
A strict
regime would require many observers. The Commission is considering
particular species discards, and Commissioner Borg will bring proposals
to Council meetings. We do not want discards, but around UK shores we
need a ban or a reduction on a species basis. The industry is working
hard on different gear types, which we will trial in the North sea
later this year. For example, the eliminator net, which was trialled in
the North sea last year, showed a considerable reduction in discards,
particularly for cod and haddock. My right hon. Friend will know that
haddock and cod are often caught up in the same gear. The eliminator
net allows the cod to go up and the haddock to go downI believe
that that is correctand thereby to escape. New, innovative gear
types are helping, but there is not just one solution, and we are
conscious that a range of measures is needed. The Commission will
introduce proposals, which we want to
support.
Bill
Wiggin:
Will the UK face any penalties from the
Commission as a result of the criticism picked up by the Court of
Auditors? Will additional resources be required to implement any
changes as a result of the
report?
Jonathan
Shaw:
No, we are confident that we will not face
infraction penalties. However, if the Commission alerts us to concerns
for which we will be fined, I shall provide the hon. Gentleman and the
House with details. At the moment, however, we do not believe that that
will be the
case.
Kelvin
Hopkins:
Fish do not recognise national boundaries, and
can swim from one set of waters to another. But is it not the case that
Norway has looked after its fish stocks and preserved them despite
being close to European Union fishing waters, because it is outside the
common fisheries policy and more able to husband its stocks
effectively? Does my hon. Friend accept that if we were fish, we would
probably do better to swim into Norwegian waters because we would have
less chance of being caught?
Jonathan
Shaw:
I am not sure that there is any evidence for what my
hon. Friend says. He attends these Committees and makes the charge that
anything that is subject to a collective decision by the 20 member
states must be bad for the United Kingdom. I do not accept that point
of view. He has not advanced any detail as to why he thinks that Norway
has a better record of preserving sustainable stocks than the UK, other
than that it is outside the European Union. Every year, the European
Union and Norway negotiate in the run-up to the December Council
meeting and discuss the quantities of different species that we will
take from the North sea, whether in Norwegian waters or those of member
states. Together we consider the balance that must be struck between
conservation and the needs of industry and, as consumers who enjoy
fish, our own needs. We must find that balance, and the relationship
between the European Union and Norway is one that, I think, works
well.
Mr.
Carmichael:
I want to take the Minister back to discards.
The best way to end discards is to have taxing quotas that meet the
health of the fish stocks, rather than there being a disparity between
those two things. Does he agree that a centralisation of power in the
hands of the Commission, rather than regional management councils,
would be exceptionally unhelpful? Does he share my concern that there
is little reference to regional management councils in the papers under
discussion? If we acquire the extra data with regard to enforcement in
this country, will he ensure that the information will be used to
inform the work of the regional management
councils?
Jonathan
Shaw:
I agree with the hon. Gentlemans thrust: the
future of the common fisheries management policy must be based on a
regional system, rather than being centralised from Brussels. Such a
system is beginning to evolve. As we have shown in the UK this year, we
can bring forward proposals for cod avoidance programmes or reference
fleets that will reduce discards to about 10 per cent. We need to bring
forth more proposals to enable industry, science and member states to
come up with solutions and police such proposals themselves. That is
the way forward, and the regional advisory councils have a key role to
play in that. As we look forward to 2012 and the reform of the common
fisheries policy, management and enforcement must belong more to the
ranks. That is the
future.
Bill
Wiggin:
Paragraph 28(d) on page 29 of the Courts
report criticises the UK for introducing obligatory recording and sales
notes only in 2006. In his explanatory memorandum, the Minister stated
that that is not correct, and that the system introduced in 2005 simply
formalised who should submit sales notessomething that has been
taking place since 1994. In its response, why does the Commission
appear to disagree with the Government at paragraph 28(d), and say that
it had identified shortcomings in the UKs control and
enforcement system, and that infringement proceedings were being
undertaken? What are those proceedings and shortcomings, why are they
not mentioned in the Ministers submission, and can the Minister
confirm whether the Commission has accepted his
explanation?
Jonathan
Shaw:
I really did not get all that. If the hon. Gentleman
will ask a few questions each time, I will answer them. Firing a salvo
of about 12 makes it very difficult. Perhaps he will start again and
accommodate me by being a little slower.
Bill
Wiggin:
I will help the Minister by doing
that.
Mr.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con): Do it
slowly.
Bill
Wiggin:
I will do my best and go through this briefly for
the Committee. In paragraph 28(d), the Courts report criticises
the UK for introducing obligatory sale notes only in 2006. The Minister
says that that is not correct and that they were brought in 1994 and
technically introduced by the Government in 2005. The
Commissions response appears to disagree with the Government,
and the Commission has identified shortcomings and is proceeding with
infringements against us. Why have those proceedings and shortcomings
not been mentioned in the Ministers submission? Why is the EU
doing this, and will the Minister confirm whether the Commission has
accepted his
explanation?
Jonathan
Shaw:
We have said that it is not correct that sales notes
have been compulsory since
1994.
Bill
Wiggin:
You said that they
were.
Jonathan
Shaw:
No; we have said that they have not been compulsory
since 1994. The system of registration for buyers and sellers and the
distinction of auction markets were introduced in 2005. That simply
formalised who should submit sales notes. Before 2005, it was not clear
who should submit sales notes, but we now accept them from fishermen
and their agents. The legal responsibility for the submission of that
information clearly lies with the auction trader or with the buyer, if
the fish is sold directly from the fishing
vessel.
The
Commissions response refers to infraction proceedings initiated
against the UK, so what is the status of those proceedings? The answer
is that the Commission initiated those infraction proceedings in 2002
for several reasons, including ensuring that there is adequate
inspection of the verity of the quantities of fish landed, enforcement
of obligations regarding satellite monitoring, adequate cross-checking
of information, effective transport control and adequate follow-up. In
2005, the Commission issued its reasoned opinion against the UK. We
have vigorously refuted all the criticisms, and the matter now lies
with the Commission, which will consider further possible action. For
the reasons that I have given, we are confident that proceedings will
not be brought against us. Obviously, however, we will wait to hear
what the Commission says. As I said to the hon. Member for Leominster
earlier, if proceedings are brought against us, I shall notify him and
the House about what we intend to
do.
The
Chairman:
Does the hon. Gentleman wish to pursue that line
of questioning further, or shall we move to a new
subject?
Bill
Wiggin:
I should be delighted to, if I may. The
Courts report highlights, at paragraph 29, the lack of systemic
cross-checks on VMS data in several countries, including the UK. On
page 70, the Commission states that it is aware of problems with the
UK, and that this issue is
part of ongoing infringement
proceedings.
If,
as the Minister claims on page 90, the UK now has that cross-check
system in place, and it was not operational in November 2006 when the
auditors visited, why is the Commission still pursuing those infraction
proceedings?
Jonathan
Shaw:
As I have said, we have vigorously defended our
position, and we now have cross-check proceedings. We have the vessel
monitoring system, and it is cross-checked against the register of
buyers and sellers, which ensures that we know where fish are being
landed and who is buying them. Where concerns arise about disparity
within that system, we use our systematic and risk-based investigation
system to target fishermen or people who are purchasing what we believe
to be black
fish.
Dr.
Strang:
The fixing of total allowable catches and the
allocation of quotas is supposed to be at the core of the common
fisheries policy. The Minister will know that the Commission introduced
the days-at-sea limitation in the 1990s. Presumably, its objective was
to reduce the amount of fish that were landed out of quota throughout
the European Union; how does the Minister think it is
working?
Jonathan
Shaw:
Things are moving on. At the December Council
meeting, we secured a deal whereby there would be a pot of kilowatt
days for Scotland in particular; it is then for the administration to
distribute the amount of effort amongst the fleet. That has been
welcomed in Scotland, and a smaller pilot programme is being instituted
in England. Such programmes allow the administration flexibility in
allocating effort. Some vessels need to steam for a long time to get to
the waters where they want to drop or shoot their nets, and that can be
taken into account. Equally, the weather is another factor within the
regime that must be taken into account. We believe that the report
heralds a new approach, whereby the industry and the Government will
work much more closely together and in everyones interest. If
flexibility is to be maintained, there needs to be strict compliance,
because the Commission could easily reduce the pot of kilowatt days,
the distribution of which would be felt by the industry as the pot
would be that much smaller. We believe that the system will work
well.
The days-at-sea
regime was introduced as a necessary part of the common fisheries
policy to ensure that we have sustainable stocks. There are now other
approaches, such as building partnerships between the Government,
industry and science, so that we maximise potential for the industry
while ensuring that there are sustainable
stocks.
Mr.
Carmichael:
May I draw the Ministers attention to
page 38 of the Council document, particularly paragraph 86, which
relates to the Community Fisheries Control Agency in Vigo? It
states:
Contrary
to what its name might suggest, the Agency has no powers of its own in
relation to fisheries control.
Will the Minister give me an assurance that
he will do everything within his power to ensure that that remains the
case? The last thing that we require is a centralised fisheries control
agency, and if we were to centralise it, doing so in Vigo would
probably be the final nail in the coffin of the British fishing
industries.
Jonathan
Shaw:
The hon. Gentleman will know that in his area the
fishing industry has done well over the past two years. The landing
prices have been high and I know that the industry wants that to
continue. It is in all of our interests to ensure
compliance.
On
his remark about the Community Fisheries Control Agency, I do not
think, as I have said, that a centralised regime is the future. We will
bring forward our arguments, which we will be consulting on throughout
the UK, to ensure that we have a more de-centralised system, which is
in all our interests. The fishing industry in the Shetlands has done
well, and we want to ensure that it continues to do well. That means
that we must all comply with the necessary safeguards to ensure that
fish are not landed illegally, and that we must respect the total
allowable catches set at each Council meeting and at the December
Council meeting.
Kelvin
Hopkins:
I want to draw my hon. Friends attention
to paragraph 1.7 on page 3, which lists a series of very serious
problems in monitoring the common fisheries policy and quota data. Is
it not clear from the report, and from that paragraph in particular,
that after 35 years those problems are inherentthey invite
dishonestyand that the system will not work in the
end?
Jonathan
Shaw:
I do not agree. As I have said, we accept some of
the criticism but not all of it. The inspections took place between
April and November. There were only two visits, to Newlyn in Cornwall
and to Milford Haven. Reports were requested from fishery areas
throughout the UK and we think that we have made important progress
since then. However, all the industry must work towards ensuring that
we have proper compliance throughout the European Union, so that we
have a level playing field. We are confident that we can improve our
system and that we have improved our system. We are by no means
complacent, but I do not accept my hon. Friends wholesale
criticism of the system; yes, it has flaws and can be improved, but it
is not completely and utterly brokenfar from it; I think that
it is improving.
Bill
Wiggin:
How did the auditors make so many mistakes in the
report? According to the explanatory memorandum, many mistakes were
made when assessing the UKs work in this area. Was the
Ministers Department given any opportunity to correct the
record prior to the report being published? I see
nodding.
Jonathan
Shaw:
Yes, I am nodding. We were able to comment about
particular aspects of the report, as I have set out in the explanatory
memorandum, and I understand that we were able to make some
corrections.
Kelvin
Hopkins:
Before the CFP was inflicted upon Britain,
Britains fishing waters were among the largest in the European
Unionthey were possibly the largest. Is it not a fact that we
have lost millions of tonnes of fish worth billions of pounds to the
British economy over the past 35 years, and we have also seen our fish
stocks depleted simply by overfishing by foreign
vessels?
Jonathan
Shaw:
It is always convenient to blame everything on
foreigners, is it not? The fact is that we have had to reduce our
fishing effort because, believe it or not, British vessels fish in
foreign waters, too. I explained to my hon. Friend earlier that
negotiations take place every year between the European Union and
Norway.
The number of
fish in our seas has reduced significantly. In 1987, we took about
170,000 tonnes of cod from the North sea, but last year we took less
than 20,000 tonnes. Most of the cod taken out of the North sea is taken
out, I believe, by UK vessels. So, we have had to learn the lessons
ourselves. We could not continue fishing for ever and a day, taking out
as many fish as we would like, because there would have been nothing
left. In Newfoundland, not so long ago, the fishermen found that out to
their cost. That was not a case of foreign vessels being at work,
because local vessels were fishing those waters. So, I do not accept
what my hon. Friend has said.
Mr.
Carmichael:
The Ministers own memorandum observes
that it has been prepared in consultation with the devolved
Administrations. Will he tell the Committee whether his memorandum also
represents the views of the Scottish Government, or are there
differences in policy in relation to this
sector?
Jonathan
Shaw:
We have a UK-agreed position. Officials discussed
that position and clearly, if there are issues that require further
discussion, that discussion will involve Ministers from all the
devolved Administrations. This is the UK position and there is no
difference between us at all on this subject, I am glad to
say.
Bill
Wiggin:
Will any of the UKs European fisheries
fund money be spent on improving control and inspection
systems?
Jonathan
Shaw:
Regarding the European fisheries fund, we will
introduce the operational programme soon, and we hope that we will
receive a final decision on it in May. It may well include matters
related to control and inspection
systems.
Kelvin
Hopkins:
I say to the Minister that I make my points not
out of simple national interest. The point that I am trying to make is
that, where nations look after their own fish stocks in their original
fishing areas, they are much more likely to be concerned with
protecting them than they are if there is a free-for-all and they can
fish in other waters. I say to him that the system is inherently
flawed, because people do not feel a sense of responsibility towards
fish stocks in the North sea.
Jonathan
Shaw:
I do not accept what my hon. Friend has
said.
Mr.
Carmichael:
The Ministers memorandum, in the final
bullet point on page 85, observes
that
the Commission and
Member States should adopt active measures to reduce structural
overcapacity in the fishing
industry.
For those of us
who have been through a programme of decommissioning within our own
communities in recent years, that is a somewhat surprising statement.
Would the Minister care to elucidate exactly which structural
overcapacities he intends to
address?
Jonathan
Shaw:
I am aware of the structural changes that have
happened over recent years, and that they have been felt by communities
across the UK, including the hon. Gentlemans. I announced
earlier this year some changes that I intend to introduce. For example,
I hope to reduce the under 10 m fleet in England. A small number of
craft are taking a large proportion of the inshore quota that is
managed by the Marine Fisheries Agency. Some £5 million will be
set aside for a decommissioning programme, and we believe that that
will make a contribution. That is some of the restructuring that will
occur in the
UK.
Bill
Wiggin:
Aerial surveillance plays an important part in
monitoring our fisheries. Since 1997, the amount of coverage has fallen
from 2,500 to 1,000 hours. Will the Minister let us know whether there
will be aerial surveillance after the current contract expires next
year, and, if so, what the coverage will
be?
Mr.
Gray:
He does not
know.
Jonathan
Shaw:
I do know. The hon. Member for Leominster will be
aware that the 1997 contract, which included 2,500 hours, was drawn up
before the vessel monitoring system came into being. The situation was
that there would be aerial observation, but that it would be done very
much on a random basis, whereas now monitoring is done from the shore,
from aeroplanes and from River class vessels in England and Wales and
vessels in Scotland. We know where vessels are, where they have been
and whether they are in closure areas, for example. It is a case of
making more efficient and more effective use of our resources and
bringing together technology as well as aerial observation, which is
important, because it ensures that we know whether someone is
fishingit is sometimes difficult to tell that from vessel
monitoring systems, which may give some indication but not enough to
prosecute. In order to prosecute, a vessel must have been seen
committing the
offence.
Kelvin
Hopkins:
On page 56 of the report, there is a table that
shows the differences between scientific opinion as to how much fish
might be caught, and the total allowable catch figures from the Council
of Ministers. In every case, the European Union figures are
substantially higher than the scientific figures, and the picture was
worse in 2007 than it was in 2006. Does my hon. Friend accept that,
according to the scientists, we are riding towards a future
disaster?
Jonathan
Shaw:
No, I do not accept that. The advice that the
European Commission receives every year from the International Council
for the Exploration of the Sea answers the question how many fish
should we take out of the sea if we are to have recoverable stocks next
year. It is a foolish question, because we have recovery programmes,
and they operate in a sustainable way. For example, our cod recovery
programme covers several years rather than one
year.
I welcome the
fact that last year we saw a recovery in cod, because of several good
year classes. That allowed us to take out, not a huge amount, but a bit
more cod from the North sea in line with our sustainable cod recovery
programme. Information is provided by us and by UK scientists run by
the administrations in Scotland and England, and it is confirmed and
supported by the Commissions
scientists.
Mr.
Carmichael:
I have already identified for the Minister
several areas in which the proposals in the document could lead to
centralisation. In the event of centralisation of control to the
Commission, rather than the devolution that we all want, and in the
event of ratification of the treaty of Lisbon, which, of course,
provides for formalisation of the conservation of marine biological
resources as the exclusive competence of the EU, what does he think the
impact will be on these
measures?
Jonathan
Shaw:
Specifically from the Lisbon
treaty?
Jonathan
Shaw:
The Lisbon treaty makes no changes to the role or
powers of either member state with regards to fishery. Community
competence over fisheries is shared, except for conservation measures,
where it is the exclusive competence of the Community since the
UKs treaty of accession came into force in 1979. The treaty
merely codified the previous case
law.
Bill
Wiggin:
The Minister did not manage to tell us how much
aerial surveillance will take place in the future, but I am sure that
he will do so as soon as he can. He said it is important that fishermen
who are fishing illegally are caught. He can imagine my concern that
the number of Royal Navy protection squadron patrol days is to be cut
from 12,000 in 1997 to what could be as few as 600. Has the Commission
expressed any criticism of that reduction? If the number of patrol days
prove to be inadequate, can the Commission pursue infringement
proceedings?
Jonathan
Shaw:
The hon. Gentleman is prefacing his remarks about
England and
Wales?
Bill
Wiggin:
The hon. Gentleman is simply asking a question.
Tell us how many aerial days there will
be.
Jonathan
Shaw:
That is a matter for the Marine and Fisheries
Agency. We have 1,000 hours and that is a result of a risk-based
assessment. From 2009-10 there will be 1,000 hours, which is based upon
working with the vessel monitoring system. We will also consider
cross-compliance and the registration of buyers and
sellers. There are three River class vessels in England and Wales and
four in Scotland, one of which is currently being refurbished.
Following the previous Island class vessels, the hon. Gentleman will be
aware that the Royal Navy has warmly welcomed the River class vessels.
The Island class vessels had only one pursuit vessel, which was
effectively a rubber dinghy that could carry only two fisheries
inspections officers. He will be aware that we now have two of those
rubber dinghies on the River class vessels they are big
things
Jonathan
Shaw:
Yes, Zodiac. So, we can have up to four fisheries
inspections officers now.
We have better vessels built by
Vosper Thornycroft in Portsmouth. They are highly
manoeuvrablethe Royal Navy was involved in the design
workand they can stay at sea for longer. I am sure that the
hon. Gentleman is aware of that because he has asked me questions about
italthough he chose not the comment on that point. The vessels
are much more flexible, manoeuvrable and competent for the task in
hand. It is also important to remember that inspection at sea leads to
quite a small percentage of prosecutions for failing to
comply.
Bill
Wiggin:
No, it does not. In 2003 the National Audit Office
report on fisheries enforcement in England found that a higher
percentage of inspections at sea by the Fishery Protection Squadron
recorded infringements than those conducted on land. Between 10 and 13
per cent. of infringements were recorded as a result of sea-based
inspections compared with just 2 and 4 per cent. for land-based. Those
figures are from 2000 and 2001. Are there more recent figures or have
those figures changed? Does that not prove the importance of having
patrol vessels out there enforcing fisheries, rather than cutting back
on patrol
days?
Jonathan
Shaw:
New figures are available, and I will mention them
shortly. Certainly, we knowand the Commission has
statedthat it is necessary to have an effective, efficient and
broad approach by using aerial, sea and land surveillance. The
Commission advised that it was essential for fisheries inspectors
around the coast, of which there are some 165 in the UK, to have access
to the vessel monitoring system, and that has actually made us far more
efficient. I shall find the details that the hon. Gentleman has
referred to in the debate, because it is important that I put them on
the record for him.
Bill
Wiggin:
I am afraid so. I am grateful to the Minister for
finding the figureswhen he can. If he cannot do so today, I am
sure that he will drop me a note.
On the way in which we are
moving forward, the Commission, in its response, is optimistic that the
introduction of the electronic logbook and reporting will alleviate
some of the problems with surveillance and cross-referencing, which the
Court of Auditors
highlighted. However, when the matter was debated in Committee in 2006,
concerns were raised about the compatibility of the different software
that member states might use, creating problems when exchanging
information. Have those issues been resolved, and is there a standard
format for use?
Jonathan
Shaw:
We want to improve our systems standards,
and we are introducing the electronic logbook, which will be instigated
for vessels over 24 m in 2010, and over 15 m six months
later.
Bill
Wiggin:
So when will we be able to use remote sensing
technology on foreign vessels to detect whether they are in compliance
with fishing control systems?
Jonathan
Shaw:
I shall check and write to the hon.
Gentleman.
Kelvin
Hopkins:
This is the last in my long line of questions to
my hon. Friend. Does not the report, logic and common sense lead one to
the inevitable conclusion that the only way in which we will recover
fish stocks and rebuild the fishing industry around our shores, and
indeed around the rest of Europe, will be to re-establish the previous
system of national waters, where our fishermen fish in our waters, and
where we as a country husband our own stocks and other countries do the
same?
Jonathan
Shaw:
That would require us to leave the European Union.
That policy of leaving the common fisheries policy was proposed at the
previous election by the Conservative party. I do not know whether the
policy has changed since.
Jonathan
Shaw:
It has changed. But it obviously slipped through the
net. I did not hear about it.
Mr.
Carmichael:
May I bring the Ministers attention to
page 42 of the document? Paragraph 97 reads:
Furthermore, proceedings
for failure in the implementation of control, inspection or sanctions
procedures require a significant volume of inspection work on the part
of the Commission. Due to the absence of easily verifiable assessment
criteria, the Commission has to increase the volume of evidence in
order to demonstrate that the failure is both general and
permanent.
Will the
Minister assure me that he will resist any move to reduce the amount of
evidence required for such proceedings? Does he not accept that the
general thrust of that section of the Commissions document is
based on a misapprehension that the only pressure that can be brought
to bear on member states is through the legal system? The legal system
is the last resort, and over the years the political pressure that has
been brought to bear on member states has been much more
effective.
Jonathan
Shaw:
I agree that the last resort should be legal
intervention. As I said earlier, we need a regime that is tough and a
partnership approach that binds the industry, the Government and
scientists to find new
ways of working so that issues of non-compliance do not arise. There has
been a reduction in non-compliance, but we should not be complacent.
The report is helpful, because it concentrates our minds, and although
we disagree with some aspects of the it, it is important that we look
at our operations to ensure that they are effective. I agree with the
hon. Gentleman that we do not want unnecessary further legal
requirements. We want the partnership approach to which I have
referred.
As I said in
my opening remarks, significant changes have been made in recent years.
Our cross-compliance mechanisms have not allowed things to slip through
the netunlike the Conservative policy, which did slip through
the netbut have closed the net. People no longer want to be
seen to be purchasing illegally-landed fish, because they could now be
subject to prosecution. Consumers no longer want to be associated with
that. Furthermore, some of our supermarkets and processors have taken a
leadYoungs of Grimsby, for example, has taken a very
proactive
approach.
Bill
Wiggin:
Why did paragraph 72 of the report deem the rate
of attendance by inspectors to be definitely
inadequate? The Minister dismissed that criticism on page 93,
but it would helpful to know why the auditors might have thought that
and whether they are aware of the targeted approach being taken. Will
he reassure us that the arrangements for attendance by inspectors are
fit for
purpose?
Jonathan
Shaw:
As I said earlier, we have 160 inspectors around the
coast and we think that our risk-based approach is the right one.
Thanks to our vessel monitoring systems, we know where vessels have
been, and if a picture emerges in which landings and purchases differ,
we use that targeted approach to investigate. We have brought
prosecutions, some of which have resulted in very large
fines.
Bill
Wiggin:
Paragraph 81 of the report slams the UK for not
targeting inspections relevantly or efficiently and states that
inspectors increased inspections of vessels where no infringements were
found, but did not undertake inspections on other larger vessels. That
makes it very difficult to believe that the targeted approach is being
used properly. On page 94, the Minister conceded
that
more systemic checks
on previous activity could assist in
targeting.
What action is
he taking to ensure that that
happens?
Jonathan
Shaw:
As I said, we take a targeted approach. If a larger
vessel showed no cause for concern and if the data from the register of
buyers and sellers were satisfactory
[Interruption.] The
hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but we only target vessels that we are
concerned about. If the vessel monitoring system, aerial surveillance
and every cross-check available show that a vessel is complying, what
is the point of inspecting
it?
Bill
Wiggin:
Then why does paragraph 72 of the report state
that the inspections were definitely
inadequate?
Jonathan
Shaw:
As I have said to the hon. Gentleman and the
Committee throughout, we are happy to enter the debate about the
auditors conclusions, but do not accept all of their
criticisms, including that one. Does the hon. Gentleman think that we
should inspect vessels that are clearly complying with the register of
buyers and sellers, and which we know, from the vessel monitoring
system, have not entered any closed areas? Should we inspect such
vessels when there is no need and when there is no indication of a
failure of compliance? This is how all inspection regimes across public
policy should be run. For example, if a school is doing particularly
well, we do not need so many Ofsted inspections, but if we are
concerned about a schools examination results, we need to
concentrate on it. It is the same with the common agricultural policy.
Where there is an infringement and where there is not cross-compliance,
we need more inspections, but where people perform well, we take a
light
touch.
Bill
Wiggin:
But this inspection report that says that the
Governments performance isI say it
againdefinitely inadequate. I sympathise with
the Ministers robust defence, but he cannot complain about the
nature of the report when it states that what he is doing is
definitely inadequate. Would he like to
comment?
Jonathan
Shaw:
We have our risk-based approach. We have read the
Court of Auditors criticism, but we do not accept it. We are
happy to discuss and debate the issue, but we know why we do what we do
in the way that we do it: it is done on a risk basis. If concerns are
not shown in respect of vessels, either we do not inspect them or we
inspect them in a light-touch
way.
The
Chairman:
Order. We have come to the end of the hour
allotted for questions, but I am happy to extend it if the hon. Member
for Leominster still has questions to ask, bearing in mind that the
extra time will come from the time allowed for debate. The sitting will
finish at exactly the same
time.
Bill
Wiggin:
I have only a couple more pages to go,
Mr.
Illsley.
The Court of
Auditors report criticised the UK for not having a centralised
system for recording inspection reports when it visited. However, the
Minister has stated that that is incorrect because the MCSSthe
UK monitoring control and surveillance systemwhich records the
information, has been in place since June 2006, as is mentioned on page
93. Why were the auditors unaware of the measures that were in place at
the time? Is that indicative of a breakdown of communications between
the auditors and
officials?
Jonathan
Shaw:
No, I do not think that it is a breakdown. There are
areas in the auditors report about which we did not agree, and
the hon. Gentleman has highlighted another
one.
Bill
Wiggin:
I know that the Minister has to do what his Whip
says and that he had to say no to that question. However, it is odd,
given that the Minister
told me a little while ago that he had an opportunity to comment on the
report and that corrections were made, that there are all these
extraordinary
disagreements.
As a
consequence of the auditors report, is the Commission looking
to implement a more micro-management approach to fisheries control or
will the Minister press it to be more targeted and effective in its
actions?
Jonathan
Shaw:
Everything that I have said talks about a less
centralised system. It is better to approach fisheries management on a
regional and localised basis, with buy-in from the industry, the
Government and scientists. We took that approach last December and we
will take it again as we move into the discussions about common
fisheries policy reform. We have taken that approach in our response to
the auditors report.
We were able to comment and
provide some clarification on the auditors report before it
went to the Commission. Auditors will always take the worst-case
scenariofor example, if a vessel is not being inspected, people
must be getting away with somethingbut that is not the nature
of fisheries management. The hon. Gentleman understands that, so he
supports either our view or that of the
auditors.
Bill
Wiggin:
I am very disappointed to hear that there should
be a difference or
two.
When
does the Minister expect to complete and submit his Departments
2007 report, pursuant to Council regulation 2847/93 on the monitoring
and application of the CFP? Will that report address the concerns
expressed by the Court of Auditors and reassure the Commission that the
level of infringements against the UK suggested in the auditors
report may not be accurateas the Minister has done in his
explanatory
memorandum?
Jonathan
Shaw:
We will continue to make our case. We are more than
happy for the Commission to explore how we are enforcing the common
fisheries policy; we believe that we are doing it effectively. We will
publish all necessary reports to ensure that we are compliant with the
policy. However, overall, there has been good advancement since the
auditors report, as I have set out, and that has broad support
from the different Administrations in the UK and from the
industry.
Bill
Wiggin:
Paragraph 70 of the Court of Auditors
report comments on cases in England and Wales and four other member
states,
where
infringements had been found but the follow-up action provided for in
the procedures had not been taken, and the reasons for this decision
had not been
documented.
That is in
the Ministers document bundle at page 43. This is not the first
time that the UK has been criticised for its reporting of infringements
and action taken. The 2003 National Audit Office report criticised
fisheries enforcement in England and found that few infringements
warranted further action. Although all infringements at sea were
recorded with the Department by the Royal Navy, minor transgressions
identified shoreside were not. Five years after that NAO report, do
these inconsistencies in reporting remain? Does the Minister intend to
introduce any procedures so that the reasons for not pursuing
infringement actions are actually
noted?
Jonathan
Shaw:
There are criticisms about enforcement, but we have
an approach to enforcement and prosecution that we think is
proportionate. For example, we give verbal warnings to fishermen when
they submit a logbook after more than 48 hours, if there are minor
omissions in the logbook, or if a few fish in the catch are marginally
below the minimum landing size. We build up that picture to the point
where we take people to court. Serious, large fines have been imposed
on those who have clearly flouted the law. I can give the hon.
Gentleman examples, if he wishes, but he is probably aware of the
Kilkeel case in Liverpool, and others in which assets totalling more
than £1.9 million were seized. That conveys how seriously we
take the issue, and sends a signal to those who want to transgress the
law.
Bill
Wiggin:
I am grateful for the Ministers answer,
but it does not even begin to deal with the issue that concerned the
auditors, which is that when no action is taken in response to an
infringement, the reason must at least be noted. That has not happened,
and that is what is being criticised. What is going to
change?
Jonathan
Shaw:
This is a matter of the different types of
infringement. We think that the approach should be proportional. At one
level, for a minor offence, there will be a verbal
warning.
Bill
Wiggin
indicated
dissent.
Jonathan
Shaw:
The hon. Gentleman shakes his head; perhaps he
thinks that we should not give warnings for minor matters. Moving on
from that level, we give official warnings. Then there are letters, and
then administrative penalties. Just the other week, I signed off a
statutory instrument about a new regime of penalties that we are
bringing in. Also, we proceed with serious prosecutions. There is a
range of approaches, and I do not think that we should take legal
action against a fisherman for a minor infringement. The matter is one
of the relationship with the district inspectors, who know the
fishermen. They develop those relationships, and they take a tough
stand. They give warnings for minor infringements, but will up the ante
according to the nature of the infringement, and fishermen know
that.
Mr.
Carmichael:
On a point of order, Mr. Illsley. I
am sure that Committee members have found the flexibility as to time
that you have allowed immensely helpful. I should like to raise general
points relevant to what is being said in a speech rather than in a
question, and it would be of immense assistance to me if you could
suggest how much flexibility you are going to
demonstrate.
The
Chairman:
I am allowed to give an extension of 30 minutes,
but in view of the fact that we are now reduced to an exchange between
the Government and
Opposition Front Benches, perhaps I should bring questions to a close in
the next few minutes, so that we can, in fairness to all hon. Members,
move on to a
debate.
Bill
Wiggin:
Thank you, Mr. Illsley. I do not intend
to delay the Committee, but I think that the Minister has fundamentally
misunderstood the essential criticism in the Court of Auditors
report, which is not about punishing fishermen; it is about the failure
to log the reason for not punishing them. It is about the audit trail.
In answering my questions, the Minister has twice failed to grasp that
what the auditors are criticising is the fact that they are unable to
go through the reasons for letting fishermen
off.
Jonathan
Shaw:
As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the report dates
from 2006, and it looked back. We now follow up all procedures, and
they are now recorded on the MFAs database. I hope that that
gives him some comfort and relief with respect to the criticism that he
has made.
Bill
Wiggin:
Does the Minister agree with the Court of Auditors
that member states need to improve the quality of their catch data and
have the information certified by an independent
body?
Jonathan
Shaw:
Of course we want to improve. We have improved since
that European Court of Auditors report was delivered to the
Commission. We always keep such things under review and look to
improve. However, that improvement comes from partnership with the
fishing
industry.
Bill
Wiggin:
With reference to the criticism in paragraph 30 of
the reporton page 30relating to the deadline to collect
data by 15 February, delays in collecting and validating the data and
the UKs late submission adjusting the data, the Minister has
expressed concern that that deadline is too early for the reporting of
quota uptake. He stated on page 90 that it is
really a criticism of EU
procedures.
Is he
disappointed that, in the Commissions response on page 71, no
indication is given that the deadline date may be moved back? Is that
something he is pressing
for?
Jonathan
Shaw:
Yes, that is what I wrote in the explanatory
memorandum; the dates are rather inflexible. That is something we want
to take forward. It is probably of concern to a number of other member
states as
well.
The
Chairman:
Order. We should now move to debating the order
itself.
Motion made,
and Question
proposed,
That the
Committee takes note of European Union Document No. 16071/07, European
Court of Auditors Special Report No. 7/2007 on the control, inspection
and sanction systems relating to the rules on conservation of Community
fisheries resources; and supports the Governments aim of
contributing positively to discussions for further improvements in
fisheries management and control, thereby contributing to the long-term
sustainability of fish stocks.[Jonathan
Shaw.]
5.41
pm
Bill
Wiggin:
The report from the European Court of Auditors has
brought forward a range of important issues. In the light of the recent
media coverage on discards, it also once again drew to the public
attention the failures and flaws with current fisheries policy and the
need for proper reform. These are important matters, because no fishery
can have any chance of being sustainably managed if the enforcement and
protection regimes are
inadequate.
It is
concerning to see the apparent inconsistencies between the report and
the response of the Commission on the one hand, and the response of the
Government on the other. From the Governments response, it
appears as though there are few problems with the UKs control,
inspection and sanction systems. The Minister has sought to reassure us
that some of the Court of Auditors analysis is incorrect and
that the systems are better than the report appears to suggest. That
may be the case to an extent, and improvements have been made since the
auditors visited the UK. The report is, essentially, a snapshot of the
past, although after 10 years in Government, that conclusion does not
reflect well on the Ministers predecessors. However, it is
alarming to see that despite the Ministers claimswhich,
taken at face value, suggest that our systems are working
wellthe Commission has highlighted a number of areas in which
infringement action is being taken against the UK, such as on the
action of inspectors and the use of sale notes. If the changes made,
particularly through the registration of buyers and sellers, are making
the improvements to enforcement that we think that they are, I wonder
why the Commission appears to be pursuing infringement proceedings
against the UK in those areas and not instead focusing its resources on
trying to get other member states to comply with their
obligationsfor instance, on the reporting of
discards.
While I
welcome the report, given the discrepancies highlighted, it is unclear
how fairly or accurately it has reflected systems in the UK and,
therefore, the action and contribution that the Government can make to
further discussions on the matter. This discussion is principally on
the auditors report, but it could just as easily be a debate on
the performance of Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
and the Marine Fisheries Agency, which are responsible for managing and
controlling our fisheries. It is also difficult to see the contribution
that the Government can make on such an important matter when the
support that they offer to control regimes is being eroded. If the
auditors were to return, I wonder what they would make of the apparent
cuts being made, the impact that those cuts would have and whether they
would compromise our control systems. I have already raised in the
House and in written
questions
Jonathan
Shaw:
Will the hon. Gentleman give
way?
Bill
Wiggin:
I will give way, although I should probably finish
my pointbut the Minister has been very
courteous.
Jonathan
Shaw:
Will the hon. Gentleman expand on his concern about
cuts and how they impinge on operational
matters?
Bill
Wiggin:
I probably should have finished my point before
giving way, as I
said.
I
have already raised in the House and in written questions the cuts to
the Fishery Protection Squadron and to aerial surveillance under the
current Government. Those appear to be among the first victims of the
Governments 26 per cent. cut to the MFA budget. Perhaps the MFA
is having its budget cut to make up any shortfall in the European
fisheries fund money that the EU may withhold from the UK as a result
of the seemingly never-ending delays in submitting to the Commission
the UK operational
programme.
But
what of the future of the other, vital functions carried out by the
Marine Fisheries Agency, which are essential to fisheries enforcement,
control and inspection? This year, the electronic recording and
reporting system will be coming into operation. The MFA has to manage
the registration of buyers and make quota swaps to support the 10 m and
under fleet. We know that the MFA is struggling to reach its target of
inputting 90 per cent. of fisheries data on the 10 m and over fleet. In
2005, 95 per cent. of the data were entered within just five days, but
that had fallen to 90 per cent. by 2006, which was just within the
target. Moreover, the average delay in processing sales notes for the
10 m and under fleetparticularly since the requirement to
register buyers and sellers was introducedjumped from 1.9 days
in 2004 to 11.3 days in 2006.
The Minister has reassured us,
saying:
New
procedures have been introduced and resources within the MFA have been
reallocated to help deal with this increased workload while ensuring
that the key performance target continues to be
met.[Official Report, 28 November 2007; Vol.
468, c. 514W.]
However, the MFA
budget has been slashed, fisheries protection squadron patrol days and
aerial surveillance days are being axed, and the Court of Auditors has
been critical of our control, inspection and sanction regimes.
Opposition Members have had no guarantees from the Minister that our
fisheries are being adequately protected and enforced. If they are not,
however, we cannot fish sustainably or reach our 2015 target of
sourcing from maximum sustainable yields. I hope that that answers the
Ministers question.
Bill
Wiggin:
Well, I am sure that he will make a speech in a
moment and say his bit.
I turn now to the criticisms by
the Court of Auditors. When asked about the report in a written answer,
the Minister declined to provide his assessment; instead, he proceeded
to pat the European Commission on the back. Under the Lisbon
constitutional treaty, the Government have handed over exclusive
competence for fisheries to the European Commission without any attempt
at changes, but I did not realise that that meant praising the
Commission at every opportunity, even when it might prosecute
us.
In a written
answer, the Minister stated that he welcomed the Commissions
response to the report and the fact that the Commission was introducing
short-term measures to improve
the vessel monitoring system,
introducing electronic logbooks and sales notes, improving member
states and the Commissions databases, enhanced
cross-checking of data and the application
of more effective and consistent sanctions throughout the
Community.[
Official Report, 4 March 2008; Vol.
472, c.
2279-80W.]
However, we know from
experience that the application of effective and consistent sanctions
across all member states simply does not happen.
On consistency, the common
fisheries policy may never have been enforced consistently and fairly.
For example, British fishermen have been penalised by the Commission
for overfishing herring and mackerel, and have had to spend five years
paying back the extra catch, but the French got away with overfishing
an endangered speciesbluefin tunaby a massive 40 per
cent. in 2005 and by 30 per cent. in 2006. Instead of taking consistent
action, the Commission took the easy option of waiving fines and
negotiating an
amnesty.
The
Minister appears keen to applaud the Commissions response to
the European Court of Auditors criticisms. In the explanatory
memorandum, he states that the
Government
applauds the
positive stance taken by the Commission in looking at the criticism of
their
management.
However, the
sad fact remains that the Commission has a terrible track record on
managing and enforcing fisheries, and it is difficult to trust the
recent sentiments.
With the Commissions
full knowledge, the CFPs credibility is being undermined by the
failure of some countries, including France and Spain, to produce the
requested discard information. Since 2002, for instance, EU member
states have been required under Council regulation 1543/2000 to collect
discard data, but data have not been systematically compiled six years
on. France, Portugal and Spain have declined to provide discard data
for between the period between 2003 and 2006. Similarly, Spain has not
provided landings data for 2003 to 2006, as it was required to do.
Equally, France has not provided landings data for divisions 8c to 9a
of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea areas. What
we need is effective, fair and consistent action to be taken across the
EU; we do not want our fishermen being the only ones who are punished
and pursued.
Despite
the Governments warm comments about the report, the
Minsters explanatory memorandum is very critical of its
robustness and accuracy. It is disappointing that the motion makes no
reference to his response to the specific criticisms of the UK.
Paragraph 11 of the explanatory memorandum
states:
There
are about 20 specific issues mentioned in the final report where the UK
is criticised. It would seem that some of these criticisms are based on
misunderstandings on the part of the auditors...or on, in our view, a
too simplistic view of the effective deployment of
resources.
Despite
the auditors visits to port offices in Newlyn and Milford Haven, as
well as to the MFA headquarters in London, the Court, the Commission
and the Minister appear to disagree on a number of points. It would
have been helpful in these discussions if there were an update from the
Commission and the Court on their assessment of the changes that the
Government have put in place. That would have reduced some of the
confusion about the apparent inconsistencies in these documents. Any UK
Government must be at the forefront of developing sustainable fisheries
management systems. The weaknesses
that have been identified need to be resolved, and I urge the Minister
to do everything in his power to advance this process as quickly as
possible.
5.50
pm
Mr.
Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD): It is
unfortunate that the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton is not
currently in his place. It should be placed on record that the House
has been very well served by his Committee in bringing these documents
before us for our consideration today. There is a great deal about them
that causes me substantial
unease.
In passing, I
am slightly surprised that the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar is
not present. My party was invited to give up one of its places in
Committee in order that he might have representation, and we did so
without any quibble. It may be that he is somewhere in terminal 5
waiting for his
luggage.
The Minister
commented on the general health of the industry, which I want to touch
on briefly. He was right when he said that landing prices are up
significantly and that there is a general mood of optimism in the
industry that, frankly, was not to be found a few years ago. I caution
his enthusiasm, however, because there remain a few significant
challenges for the industry, not least the cost of fuel, which is
eating significantly into the increased landing
prices.
As ever, we
must remind ourselves that there is no such thing as the
fishing industry; there are a number of fishing industries.
Things are going better these days for the white fish fleet, but in my
constituency I detect a degree of anxiety among the pelagic fleet
regarding the prospects for that part of the industry. Ministers need
to be eternally vigilant in relation to that
issue.
I have some
concerns about the thrust of the report. To those who do not have an
intimate knowledge of it, the management of fisheries is not always
easy to observe or understand from the outside. That shines through a
number of observations that the auditors made with regard to the
operation of enforcement, particularly as it relates to the United
Kingdom. The registration of processors and the introduction of VMS for
vessels of 10 m and over has revolutionised fisheries
enforcement.
I think
back to my days as a solicitor in the sheriff court dealing with
fisheries infringement cases. I remember the way in which the evidence
was gathered in the first place, the way in which it was dealt with by
the prosecuting authorities and the approach that was taken by the
industry. Those things have been turned completely on their heads. That
should be the subject of some satisfaction for the Minister, his
officials and Ministers in the devolved
Administrations.
In my
view, the next logical extension would be greater use of on-board
observers, particularly if we are to address public concerns about the
prevalence of discards. That move would make a significant difference,
because it would improve the quality of the information available to
those who decide on the total allowable catches and quotas at the end
of each year. I touched on that point earlier in a question to the
Minister. The signs surrounding fisheries and the construction of total
allowable catches can be a little
on the sketchy side. That is a reflection of the difficulties in
acquiring accurate data, and the situation is always exacerbated by the
prevalence of discards. Discards are a consequence of a mismatch
between stocks and tax, which results in a vicious, downward
spiral.
Much of what
has been done has gone towards arresting that downward spiral. It is
unfortunate that that is not reflected in the report of the auditors.
It is also unfortunate that the report does not try to place fisheries
enforcement in context by saying say that it must be looked at in the
totality of fisheries management, which involves looking at how the tax
and the quotas are then to be saved. That returns me to my point to the
Minister about the importance of devolving control away from the
Commission and not centralising it, as many of the proposals in this
report seek to do. In particular, we need to move towards greater
powers for the regional advisory councils, which is the only way to
achieve effective marrying between stocks and tax and, ultimately, less
rigorous
enforcement.
5.57
pm
Jonathan
Shaw:
May I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member
for Heywood and Middleton, who is no longer in his place, for coming
today? It is helpful to have that connection between his Committee and
our deliberations hereit is rather odd if a Committee decides
that the House should debate a matter, but no one from that Committee
can listen to or participate in the
debate.
The hon. Member
for Leominster is a fine chap. He came with a prepared speech and did
not want to have any regard for the changes. He was not gracious enough
to accept that the new River class vessels are far more effective, far
more flexible and have been welcomed by the Royal Navy. Those vessels
can stay at sea for longer and are helping with the better regime that
we are
instigating.
Bill
Wiggin:
I have never criticised those vessels. I have
tabled early-day motions, which the Minister was not able to sign,
praising the work of HMS Severn in particular. However, he cannot get
away from that fact that the number of vessels has been reduced. I am
glad that the vessels are more effective, but my written questions,
which he has answered, have been about efficiency. At the end of the
day, one can only control fishing if one is there. If there are only
three vessels, it is inescapable that that is a reduction. There is
also a reduction in the number of patrol
days.
Jonathan
Shaw:
The hon. Gentleman is missing the point. We have a
much more flexible vessel now which can stay out longer at sea and can
accommodate much fiercer storms than its predecessor. Those vessels
make a considerable contribution to joining up our targeted approach.
In addition, we have been able to reduce the amount of flying time
because of our investment in technology and because of the registration
of buyers and sellers. We have put all those elements together to
provide a more efficient and more effective system that makes better
use of public money, which I would have thought that he would support.
[
Interruption.
]
We are
spending £24 million a year on enforcement. The hon.
Gentlemans remarks were about England, but this is obviously a
UK matter. He did not refer to the four vessels in Scotland at
all.
Bill
Wiggin:
Will the Minister give
way?
Bill
Wiggin:
But the auditors did not go to
Scotland.
Jonathan
Shaw:
They did not go to most of the ports around the
United Kingdom, and they did not go to Northern Ireland. However, the
matter concerns all the home nations, and all the home nations had to
provide information. The hon. Gentleman then talked about enforcement,
but his remarks related purely to England. He must understand that
there are four vessels and two airplanes in Scotland as well, and that
160 inspectors cover the different countries. It is important that we
look at the matter from a UK perspective rather than just an English
one, which was at the centre of his
remarks.
I am grateful
to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, who spoke about observers
and the need for further confidence on discards. One of the programmes
proposed at the December Council by the National Federation of
Fishermens Organisations and the UK Government was a reference
fleet that could have observers at short notice. That is something that
the NFFO is willing to do. Other advances have also been made using
video cameras to ensure compliance. The new types of gear, the better
partnerships and the enforcement regime create a much better picture
than has been painted by the auditors. Auditors, as he has said, take
the worst-case scenario. We think that the
report is a salutary document: it reminds us that we should not rest on
our laurels. By its nature, it concentrates on weaknesses in procedure,
which need to be addressed, but we do not think that the system is
fundamentally wrong. Significant improvements have been made recently
in the UKI have attempted to articulate themand, of
course, there is always further room for improvement.
The changes have had a profound
effect on how enforcement is carried out. We has discussed VMS data.
The system was an investment paid for by the UK Government in all
Administrations. It was developed in the UK, and it is one of the most
effective VMS systems. The Commission agreed that we have one of the
most compliant regimes. We have River class vessels; we will have
electronic sales notes; and further electronic logbooks will extend the
compliance process. Taken together, those developments give us a far
better picture of fishing activity than we had even five years ago. We
are using that to maximise the effectiveness of our enforcement
activity to tighten the net around the small minority of fishermen who
continue to flout the
rules.
We agree with
the Commissions proposed response to the report and the four
objectives of simplification, harmonisation, improved
cost-effectiveness and improved compliance. We will work positively
with the Commission to put those improvements into
place.
Question put
and agreed
to.
Resolved,
That
the Committee takes note of European Union Document No. 16071/07,
European Court of Auditors Special Report No. 7/2007 on the control,
inspection and sanction systems relating to the rules on conservation
of Community fisheries resources; and supports the Governments
aim of contributing positively to discussions for further improvements
in fisheries management and control, thereby contributing to the
long-term sustainability of fish stocks.
Committee rose at three
minutes past Six
oclock.