Huw
Irranca-Davies: Let me provide some reassurance. The hon.
Gentleman ended by referring to the margin of tolerance and I have
discussed that with the National Federation of Fishermen’s
Organisations and others individually and collectively. I assure him
that we have no intention of enforcing the margin of tolerance
unnecessarily stringently for the sake of it. We believe that 10 per
cent. is the right margin of tolerance, but if we find that fishermen
occasionally stray just over that in a handful of cases, we will not
come down on them like a ton of bricks. I give an assurance on that, as
I did in my discussions with the Marine and Fisheries Agency and
others.
However, the
hon. Gentleman is also right to say, without referring to individual
cases that might have been in the press, that significant infringements
have to be tackled with proportionate penalties, and we should not rule
out the occasion use of the Serious Organised Crime Agency or others.
That is not simply to penalise infringements appropriately, because
fishermen who irresponsibly overfish an area or do not declare stocks
are not only taking part in an activity that might require penalties,
but doing down other fishermen, because of the parlous state of some of
our stocks. If the stocks are not being declared, someone is cutting
someone else’s throat.
As the
Minister responsible for fisheries, I want to say that we should use
the appropriate penalties, and that includes the driving licence
approach of putting penalties on the licence when appropriate, or
verbal warnings and cautions, and also using the most serious measures
when they are required. The message is right: we want to reward
responsible
fishermen.
Mr.
Benyon: Paragraph 17 of the same document
states:
“Clear,
tailor-made specific control measures should be applied to multi-annual
plans, marine protected areas and discards under a special
regime.” The
Minister, the hon. Member for St. Ives and I are involved in the
detailed workings of 319 clauses in the Marine and Coastal Access Bill,
so we are familiar with the difficulty that the Minister and his
successors will have in implementing the marine conservation zones,
and many of us have had long conversations
about how those will work. When I discussed that with the
Commissioner, he said that marine conservation measures, implemented by
member states, will have the top cover from the EU, provided that they
are science-based and not discriminatory. That was the problem in Lyme
bay, because it was believed that the measure was discriminatory and
militated particularly against a type of fishing activity. Therefore,
can the Minister assure us that the marine protected areas measure, as
described in the document, will be not only consistent within our own
waters to a distance of six nautical miles out to sea, but available to
EU fishermen with historical rights to fish in our waters beyond that?
Can he assure us that our marine conservation measures, which we have
gone through exhaustive processes to designate, will be recognised for
those fishermen as well as our
own?
Huw
Irranca-Davies: The hon. Gentleman rightly points out the
need for the measures to apply equally to all fishermen, from not only
from the UK fleet but the EU fleet. I can give him that assurance: the
proposals before us will apply to fishermen of all fleets and of all
nations. That is the important point behind the
proposals.
Mr.
Benyon: Up to 12 nautical
miles?— [Interruption.] While the Minister
is seeking inspiration, I will ask him a related question concerning
discards. The direction of travel indicated in the Green Paper seems to
address the real concerns of fishermen, which are felt by consumers,
conservationists and everyone involved in the health of our marine
environment, about the fact that about half the fish we catch are
thrown back dead. I have discussed with the Minister in the past a
policy that we would seek to adopt, first in pilot areas but ultimately
across our waters, to end discards. I sense that much could be done,
through responsible fishing schemes, fish behavioural methods and
technical measures, to reduce discards. Can the Minister assure us that
the Government are really engaged in that—I believe that they
have been behind the curve in addressing that serious problem—so
that we will be able to say to fishermen and consumers that we have
tackled the problem and that we will resolve it in a short space of
time?
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I would not say that we are behind the
curve, simply because the fishing fleet would probably say that it is
under significant pressure to move ahead with conservation measures,
including those on discards. We avoid discards through the use of
real-time closure of areas and correct netting. That approach is very
much in line with what we have done with the conservation credit scheme
within the northern waters and with the English fleet this year, as
well as with the measures that we have applied in the cod recovery
approach. Those measures are stringent and taxing, so we are not behind
the curve.
However, the
hon. Gentleman is undoubtedly right about one thing: I repeat that we
can probably do more if we consult the fleet and go along with it. I
think that both the fleet and the European Commissioner want to tackle
this issue, and we do not have to wait for the entirety of CFP reform
to do that. I welcome his words of support about doing more, but we
have to have the fleet with
us.
Mr.
Benyon: What about the 12-mile
issue?
Huw
Irranca-Davies: Let me clarify that this control measure
has no impact on domestic policy on the 0 to 12 nautical mile
area.
Andrew
George: I shall probably come to that issue in a moment.
This point covers the same area—the proposals for inspections
outside a member state’s territory. Given that the proposal
enables a further extension of the competency for a member state to
board and inspect its own nation state vessels when they are outside
their own territory, I wonder to what extent there are developments
that allow UK inspectors to board and inspect vessels within UK waters,
not only within the 12-mile limit but within the median line and the
200-mile zones.
While the
Minister is contemplating that question, let me ask about the extent to
which inspectors from other member states may inspect their own nation
state vessels within our waters. Similarly, that relationship applies
to member states being able to board UK vessels in other member
states’ waters. Will the Minister comment on the developments
proposed within the
papers?
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I am glad to report that, by and large but
not always, there are good relationships and good arrangements between
member nations. In terms of this control measure, I confirm that UK
inspectors may inspect our vessels wherever they may be and whichever
waters they are in. It is important, however, that member nations
should try to work along bilateral and reciprocal arrangements. That
applies beyond the EU; one of our most important partners is Norway,
and although we will sometimes differ, we need to work together
effectively.
This control
measure and the proposals before us do not refer to the 0 to 12 zone,
so let me add, for clarity, that other member states’ vessels
may operate within the UK’s 12 to 200 nautical mile area, but
not within the 0 to 12 nautical mile area. That is why this document
does not refer to that
area.
Andrew
George: I am grateful for that answer, and I shall return
to that point in a moment. First, if there are agreements, to what
extent do the proposals allow UK enforcement agencies such as the Royal
Navy to board other member states’ vessels, either on a
spot-check basis or because they suspect that the vessels are engaged
in illegal activities? If they are within UK waters, will enforcement
agencies be able, from 1 January, to engage in greater enforcement and
monitoring?
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I can confirm that we are able and will
continue to be able where necessary to monitor and board any vessels
within our waters. The advantage of the measures before us is this. If
we, for example, have a level playing field in respect of electronic
monitoring of vessels, which we have rolled out extensively within our
own fleet, that will enable our inspectors and enforcers to know
accurately where vessels are going, which is one of the difficulties if
not every vessel is playing by the same rules. Yes, our ability to
board vessels and inspect them within our own waters will
remain.
Andrew
George: Then to prosecute those vessels if any illegal
activity is found is obviously a further point. The Minister has said
that there is a good bilateral arrangement between the UK and other
member states
that border it as far as UK waters are concerned.
Given that there is far better observation of the over-15-metre vessels
now that they all have—or should have—their transponders
in place and operating, to what extent do the UK enforcement agencies
engage in sharing intelligence on this issue and ensure that, whichever
enforcement vessel is closest at hand, they are radioing and talking to
one another to share and co-operate in the monitoring and enforcement
in this
sector?
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I can confirm that we do that and we talk
to neighbouring nations about movements of vessels and necessary
enforcement action so that we co-ordinate our activity, but the direct
answer is that we need to do that more and better. Part of the
advantage of this control measure, if we get it right as we take it
through Council shortly, is that we will have better access to the data
with which we need to do that. We should not in future be caught by any
surprises with vessels suddenly appearing within the waters, because we
will be tracking and monitoring them. Yes, there is good engagement on
that level. To give one example, we already share information with
VMS—vessel monitoring systems—on movements of vessels and
we co-ordinate our activities with that. We have effective enforcement
action as a
result.
Andrew
George: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply.
Earlier, he referred to the zone within the 12 miles. Bearing in mind
that, as the hon. Member for Newbury pointed out, the 6-to-12-mile zone
is one in which the vessels from member states with an historical
entitlement are able to fish, there is an anomaly in respect of the
activities in which they can engage. I seek reassurance from the
Minister that the regulations and the proposals that we are discussing
have not created a vacuum of a relatively unpoliced area between the 6
and 12-mile zones.
The sea
fisheries committees feel rather frustrated about some of the
activities of those vessels, which come right up to the edge of the
6-mile zone. They believe that on some occasions the vessels are
sweeping well within it, illegally. However, the committees cannot move
quickly enough, so they cannot take the necessary action to stop some
of the illegal activity that is going on. Can the Minister say anything
about how these proposals might strengthen
policing?
Huw
Irranca-Davies: It may be helpful if I refer to the
parallel piece of work that we are doing in relation to the Marine and
Coastal Access Bill, because within the 6-to-12-mile zone, we have,
with the hon. Gentleman’s help, strengthened byelaw-making
powers, including the ability to have emergency byelaws. It is a much
more streamlined, faster system than we currently have, and anybody
caught within those areas would be subject to it. The control
regulations—the proposals that we are discussing—will not
affect existing rules or the rules that we are bringing forward in our
own legislation, or impede any enforcement that currently takes place.
In fact, we are trying to strengthen enforcement in the zone through
the Marine and Coastal Access Bill and what we are doing with Inshore
Fisheries and Conservation Authorities.
On historic
rights for specific species and certain gear type, action is being
taken. The powers that we have in relation to those areas mean that we
use, for example,
monitoring by aircraft, as well as vessel monitoring
systems, our own fishery protection vessels and so on. The measure does
not in any way diminish our current powers of enforcement in that zone.
Certainly, if the Marine and Coastal Access Bill finds
favour—and I hope that it does—in the Commons and the
Lords, we will have enhanced powers in that
zone. Mr.
Benyon: You will be glad to know that this is my last
question, Mr. Betts. It concerns paragraph (2) of the
council regulation, which
states: “Given
that the success of the Common Fisheries Policy involves implementing
an effective system of
control”. As
a comment of sheer audacity—it uses the words
“success” and “common fisheries policy” in
the same sentence—that is something to behold. Paragraph (2)
goes on to mention the measures provided for in the regulation. The
counter to that statement would be the fact that there has been an
accepted failure of the CFP. For example, two weeks ago, I sat in
Commissioner Borg’s office and he used the word
“disaster” when describing the CFP. If he thinks
that—as do fishermen, conservationists and consumers—the
CFP surely is a disaster.
I question
the assertion that the failure is one of compliance, rather than of the
policy itself. Does the Minister think that the CFP’s
shortcomings are simply to do with not having an effective control
system, or does he agree that it is much more to do with the policy? I
argue not that the word “common” should not be part of
the CFP, but that the policy itself is wrong. We should seek to reform
that policy in
2012.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: If I understand correctly the conversation
that the hon. Gentleman had with Joe Borg, he said that compliance is a
significant factor. I agree with that because no matter what we do with
CFP reform, unless we have the data and effective monitoring, and
unless people play by the same rules, it will be an uphill struggle.
The matter is not just to do with compliance; it is to do with
fundamental, radical reform of the CFP.
The hon.
Gentleman will know that we have led, and continue to lead, from the
front on this issue. We led the debate in May and June, and we have
said that we need to have better science in terms of CFP. We need to
work for the long term and not have the annual haggling of
negotiations. We need to find the right balance of regionalisation, so
that we can bring proper accountability and responsibility to a
coherent level. Many aspects of the CFP need to be reformed. It is not
simply a matter of compliance. Good compliance, good monitoring and
good data will underpin the effectiveness of the CFP in the future.
That is why this control measure is so
important.
Andrew
George: My final area of questioning concerns recreational
angling, to which the Minister paid particular attention in his opening
remarks. As the Committee identified that the matter appeared to be a
priority for the UK, will the Minister tell us what assessment he has
made of the impact of recreational angling on fish stocks in UK waters,
by way of contrast with what we understand is taking place in other
nations? I understand that in countries such as Italy there are high
levels of recreational angling and that the impact is greater. Surely
the measures proposed were primarily intended for such countries, not
necessarily the UK.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: The hon. Gentleman has got straight to the
point. We have always made it clear that although the original proposal
may have been well intentioned, it seemed to have been designed on a
one-size-fits-all basis. The proposal might have made sense for some
nations because significant catches were being made by their
recreational fishermen. However, we believe that, first, by and large
our country does not have such an impact and, secondly, we do not have
the data to prove the point one way or the other in some
areas. There
are two important points to make. I will come to how we have made
significant progress because we have held out against the blanket
implementation of article 47 in its original format, and will continue
to do so. There is also an important data issue; we need to generate
the data that show either that recreational catches have a minimal
impact on quotas and sustainable fisheries, or that there are hot spots
where they do have an effect. Our argument to the Commission is that we
need to fill that data gap and then look at what we do, rather than put
the carriage before the horse. The current text is, however, a
considerable improvement on the original because it allows the measures
to be targeted where they are most
needed. The
blanket approach that was originally prescribed would have put a lot of
unnecessary bureaucracy and burden on many anglers. However, we still
have some concerns about the idea of recreational catches not being
taken into account in the scientific advice on which quotas are based,
although the catches may count against member states’ quota
allocations. I am reasonably confident that we will get there, and we
have the support of other member states. We have held out strongly for
a more rational approach, and I think that we will get there because
the Commission has been listening to our
arguments.
| 
