Huw
Irranca-Davies: That is an important point. The hon.
Gentleman will be aware not only of the assessment done here but those
done on better fisheries management and how we manage fisheries in the
UK, across Europe and elsewhere. The World Bank report suggested that
we were probably about $50 billion off the maximum possible if we
managed our fisheries better. The memorandum echoes what is being said
elsewhere.
We have not
done a detailed analysis of what it might mean for every vessel in
every port in the UK, but we think that it is absolutely right that a
level playing field where everybody plays by the same rules will
benefit not only the fishermen but the sustainability of stocks. As the
hon. Gentleman will appreciate, illegal, unreported and unregulated
fisheries that are not clamped down on affect not only those fishermen
who play by the rules but the stocks that become unavailable to them.
The stocks suffer, but fishermen suffer as well. There will definitely
be economic benefits from the proposal.
The
Chairman: Order. May I explain? I will allow hon. Members
with a number of questions to ask at least some of them consecutively,
then I will treat other hon. Members’ questions in the same
way.
Mr.
Benyon: The next question relates to page 18 of the bundle
and page 6 of the explanatory memorandum, which discusses the four
options that the Commission assessed. One option was no policy change,
and a variety of different options are given under points 2
and 3. Option 4, which was discarded at a fairly early
stage, was a centralisation of CFP-controlled policy at EU level, with
increased competencies for the Commission and the Community Fisheries
Control Agency. It states that
“this option had
to be discarded at an early stage since the reallocation of tasks
between the Commission and the Member States would go beyond what is
provided for in the
Treaty.” It
went on to say that politically, it was
“inconceivable
that Member States would accept suddenly giving up power to a
supranational
body”. I
do not see how that matches with added competencies being given to the
CFCA. Surely, there is an element whereby this is happening. I am not
saying that I am entirely opposed to it, but we have to get the
language right. This is a controversial issue, and if we are to revise
the role of the CFCA to police member states, we
are surely giving it more competence. I do not understand how that is
compatible with the discarding of that
option. Huw
Irranca-Davies: The hon. Gentleman raises a good point. We
have negotiated strongly and are achieving success in getting the
balance right between setting the framework on control measures, and
the appropriate derogation to member states of powers to enforce those
control measures within their own waters. In terms of the way that we
enforce and apply it, I think that we are there. This measure does not
centralise that further, but it ensures that we have a proper level
playing field so that in the southern sector, the northern sector, and
everywhere in between, people are playing by the same rules. That must
be right, but it is also appropriate that member states can apply the
measures within their own areas as relevant.
I understand
that a proposal has been made to remove the extension of competence to
the CFCA. As I said, the process of negotiation over the last six
months has been to avoid that issue of
centralisation.
Andrew
George (St. Ives) (LD): Thank you, Mr. Betts.
Once again it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Regarding
this point, and the discussion about the extended competencies of the
CFCA, to what extent have the Minister and his counterparts in Europe
engaged in any discussion about the obvious alternative, which is to
enable nation states to engage in stronger bilateral agreements with
each other, and to inspect each other’s ability to both monitor
and enforce the regulations? I have always been concerned that we are
simply centralising the responsibility to a remote central agency, when
a more effective method would be a bilateral agreement between member
states to go and visit each other’s monitoring and enforcement
offices.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: There is a close relationship between
member states and fishery enforcement agencies. There is co-ordination
between the French and the British and our Irish counterparts and so
on. However, in terms of control measures, I do not think that the
solution is to do things on a bilateral basis, because there must be a
rigorously set-down framework right across the EU.
As the hon.
Gentleman knows, the backdrop to this debate is what we are doing with
CFP reform. Pertinent to his question, and that of the hon. Member for
Newbury, is the direction of travel that the Government have taken on
CFP reform. That includes an element of regionalisation, or even
localisation, to ensure that we are managing our fisheries on a proper
sea basis. That make absolute sense, and gives some autonomy along with
responsibility to those who fish within that area. We have a long way
to go on that, but it is the direction in which we should be heading.
That does not mean that we do not set the framework at a high level,
but it means, as with the control measures, that there is a role for
member states working together to implement on their seas the
management of
fisheries.
Andrew
George: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. As
for reviewing the effectiveness of the CFCA and the resistance of the
UK Government to seeing
further powers ceded to it, would the Minister
comment on how effective the CFCA is in properly assessing the ability
of each of the member states to both monitor and enforce measures
within their own countries? He could even go to the extent of naming
and shaming those member states, which, in the view of the UK, are not
stepping up to the mark as far as monitoring and enforcement go. The
European Commission has found fault with the UK in that regard, and the
Minister may wish to comment on that as
well.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: The hon. Gentleman raises a good point. A
transparent system means that the finger is pointed not only at other
member nations but at us as well if we fall foul of the regulations.
The problem is to do with not the competence of the organisation to
monitor performance, but the lack of transparency, a level playing
field and monitoring. What the control measures should do is put that
data out there so that we have the ability to see exactly where the
system, the vessels and the member nations are falling short in their
enforcement. I do not necessarily mean that the finger should be
pointed in that way, but it will rightly help us to
ensure—whether it is me as a UK Minister or other counterparts
in the southern or northern sector—that they can be pulled up
for their actions or inactions. The CFCA has a positive role to play in
this, but it is too early to assess its effectiveness. What the measure
will give us is the tools to get on with the job properly in a way that
we have not done previously.
Mr.
Anthony Steen (Totnes) (Con): May I welcome the Minister
and say that I hope that he does better than his predecessors?
Representing Brixham, which is the second largest fishing port in the
UK and certainly the largest in England and Wales, and having been
on the European Scrutiny Committee for the last 10 years, hon.
Members will appreciate that I am somewhat sceptical about the fishing
policy of the European Union. Am I right in thinking that whatever we
say today is of no consequence; we are really just having a chat with
the Minister? We cannot do anything about what is happening. It is all
happening and the Minister is coming here to tell us that it is
happening. Am I right in saying that we have absolutely no power to do
anything in this
Committee?
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I am glad to say that the answer is no. My
discussions with the European Commissioner and with other Ministers
from other states is that they take cognisance of what is discussed
within this Parliament and of what is reported from this Committee and
from others. The idea that today’s Committee is wasting its time
is far from the truth. If I came out of this Committee today with broad
support for the direction of travel that we are taking in the
discussions next week, it would be a significant tool in my armoury.
Similarly, if there are areas in which the Committee indicates that I
am not doing enough, that will cause me to think again. Therefore, this
Committee has a significant role to play.
Mr.
Steen: I am delighted to hear that. May I give the
Minister some suggestions when he goes to Brussels? First, the biggest
issue is discards. If that is the direction of travel, I am wholly
supportive of it. To throw away more fish into the sea dead than we
land is quite immoral. The problem with this enormous directive is
that it is more of the same thing rather than less
of the same thing. Does the Minister agree that the direction of travel
should be to stop any further directives that talk about the amount of
fish that we should catch, and to deal with getting rid of the discard
policy? I have one more question to ask after
that.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: The hon. Gentleman has hit the nail on the
head. I spoke last week at a joint meeting of UK, Danish and German
Ministers that launched an initiative concerning on-board camera
monitoring of catches. That should form part of the approach under
which what is landed on board is caught and then brought in. Thereby,
less is killed and less is thrown back. The travesty of discards is not
only that it upsets shoppers increasingly, but that it upsets
fishermen, who are appalled by having to throw fish back. We must do
more to deal with this matter. Commissioner Borg wants member states to
do more to get on with that, regardless of CFP reform. There are things
that we can do, but some of them are difficult for the fishing
industry, so we must bring it with us. The hon. Gentleman is right that
dealing with the discard problem underpins the CFP reform that is
needed.
Mr.
Steen: Lastly, we know how thorough Sir Thomas Legg is.
Perhaps we should ask him to look into the fishing discards and the
landing of fish of all EU countries. I think that he would do a
thorough job and all EU countries could share the cost. Will the
Minister consider approaching Sir
Thomas?
The
Chairman: Order. Let us not go too far down that
road.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I hesitate to suggest that I have the pull
to encourage Sir Thomas to help, should we want him to. I reiterate
what I said in response to the hon. Member for Newbury: the control
measures will make the field transparent. People will know what is
happening. On that basis, it will not take a Sir Thomas Legg to bring
forward the necessary action. We should do that as member states. I
think that these proposals move us forward significantly, but further
action must follow on the back of them. They will create a step change
in the way that we monitor and regulate effectively and in the balance
between action at European and member state
levels.
Mr.
Benyon: One problem with the CFP is that it has sought to
manage fisheries in 40° of latitude, from the southernmost areas
of the Mediterranean to not far from the Arctic circle. In that space,
there are many diverse fisheries and fishery
communities. Unlike
the right hon. Member of Streatham, the Minister did not mention
article 52 on first sale in auction centres, which causes me great
concern. That measure ignores the dynamics that exist in many small UK
fishing ports and quaysides where fish are landed. I hope that we are
encouraging fishermen, particularly small fishing businesses, to
identify new markets for their fish such as local restaurants. For
example, there would be a premium for businesses in Hastings in
marketing fish landed in Hastings. People on holiday in southern
Suffolk or Brixham might want to eat local fish, so new markets could
be found. However, if fish have to be sold at auction, there could be
the absurd
situation of fish being driven many miles to the
auction only to be driven back to be served in the place where they
were landed. We should be trying to reduce food miles. That is why the
article is wrong and why it was right of the European Scrutiny
Committee to draw attention to
it. Huw
Irranca-Davies: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that
point, as was my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham. I
apologise for being remiss in not addressing it immediately. The hard
work of the last six months has paid dividends. The Commission has
confirmed that sales do not have to take place through auctions.
Article 52 has been amended to make that clear. Those who want to sell
fish outside of auctions can do
so.
Mr.
Benyon: That is good news. We have ticked one box
already. To
return to the issue of whether we have subsidiarity, the EU states on
the legal basis for the
proposal: “The
proposal falls under the exclusive competence of the Community. The
subsidiarity principle therefore does not
apply.” Excuse
me? I thought that we were for subsidiarity. To me, subsidiarity means
pushing matters down closer to communities. All the language in CFP
reform moves towards greater local decision making. That is the
direction in which I thought we were going, but the document seems to
be creating greater competence in some areas of regulation. It later
states: “To
this end the current system of micro-decisions should be progressively
replaced by a macro-management-based
approach”. That
is much more in line with what I thought was the direction of travel in
the EU, and the Green Paper certainly seems to talk about subsidiarity.
It is a ghastly word, and I wish that the Minister would define it and
tell us whether he believes that fisheries management’s
direction of travel is to push power down to member states, localities,
fisheries or regional advisory councils, which is where the future
lies.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: Many of the measures replicate what is
happening on the sea—I was going to say on the
ground—with enforcement and our ability as a member state to
enforce. The proposal does not roll that back in any direction.
However, the point is well made, and setting the overarching EU
framework, which is essential so that we all play by the same rules, is
right, but it does not centralise more. The deficiencies that I
mentioned were at EU level, not at member nation level. The problem is
that we could not enforce on a like-for-like basis or assess the data
on a like-for-like basis. The only centralisation is to fill the gaps
that arose because the EU did not adequately do its job. Enforcement
and so on remains with member
states. The
Community has competence for fisheries issues, as the hon. Member for
Newbury rightly says, but the rules allow for member nations to deal
with measures locally, and we do so. The proposal is an example of
that.
Mr.
Benyon: Paragraph (26) on page 14 of the document, page 26
of the bundle,
states: “The
persistence of a high number of serious infringements against the rules
of the Common Fisheries Policy within Community waters or by Community
operators is to a large extent attributable to the non-deterrent level
of fines laid down in the Member states”.
I am worried about the
use of some legislation in policing fisheries. We have seen legislation
on the seizure of assets, which was introduced to penalise criminals of
the worst kind, the “Mr. Big”s of the criminal
world, being used to prosecute
fishermen. I
am aware of cases of black fish landings involving large sums of money,
and it is right to treat such crimes as serious. People write to us to
say that fishermen should not be prosecuted, but I believe that at the
worst level they should be prosecuted, and Norway and other places that
people cite as being paragons of virtue are strict about prosecuting
fishermen. However, I worry that the Government use the wrong sort of
legislation, which gives a bad name to the credibility of control
measures. Will the Minister assure me that the measures being
imposed—he said that he hopes that they will be under member
state control—will be proportionate, that fishermen who
transgress the rules by margin of tolerance of a percentage point or
two will not be penalised and that a sensible approach will be applied
to
them?
| 
