Fishing Boats (Satellite-Tracking Devices and Electronic Reporting) (England) Scheme 2012
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
† Doran, Mr Frank (Aberdeen North) (Lab)
† Fuller, Richard (Bedford) (Con)
† George, Andrew (St Ives) (LD)
† Healey, John (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
† Jones, Susan Elan (Clwyd South) (Lab)
† Kawczynski, Daniel (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
† McDonagh, Siobhain (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
† Mosley, Stephen (City of Chester) (Con)
† Mulholland, Greg (Leeds North West) (LD)
† Murphy, Paul (Torfaen) (Lab)
† Paice, Mr James (Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)
Paisley, Ian (North Antrim) (DUP)
† Shuker, Gavin (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
† Skinner, Mr Dennis (Bolsover) (Lab)
† Vickers, Martin (Cleethorpes) (Con)
† Watkinson, Angela (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)
† Wheeler, Heather (South Derbyshire) (Con)
Alison Groves, Committee Clerk
† attended the Committee
Twelfth Delegated Legislation Committee
Tuesday 3 July 2012
[John Robertson in the Chair]
Fishing
Boats (Satellite-Tracking Devices and Electronic Reporting) (England)
Scheme
2012
4.30 pm
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice): I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Fishing Boats (Satellite-Tracking Devices and Electronic Reporting) (England) Scheme 2012 (S.I., 2012, No. 1375).
I welcome you to the Chair, Mr Robertson. It is a pleasure to serve under you. I find myself in the completely unusual and novel situation of opening a debate on a fisheries issue. Having served on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs brief for some 10 years in opposition and Government, this is the first time that I have ever had to address fisheries. It is a novelty. I trust that the hon. Member for Luton South will treat me delicately, as he knows that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) is in Panama dealing with the International Whaling Commission.
I am pleased to present the scheme. Electronic transmission of both satellite position reports from VMS—vessel monitoring systems—and fishing activity reports in the form of electronic logbooks form an essential element of modern fisheries control and are used more and more throughout the world to monitor fishing activity. The alternative, paper-based system of logbooks and landing declarations is both cumbersome and time-consuming for fishermen. Inputting the data from those paper records into computerised databases is also resource-intensive for fisheries Administrations.
Under EU law, the requirement to have such electronic equipment has now been extended from fishing vessels over 15 metres to vessels over 12 metres. Extension of the technology to smaller vessels will significantly improve the monitoring in real time of fishing activity, as logbook information will be transmitted back to shore daily rather than after the vessel has completed its trip, as at present. It will also contribute positively to improving compliance and ensuring the sustainability of fish stocks by greatly increasing the risk of detection of attempts to misrecord catches. I emphasise that the requirement to have the equipment is already dealt with in EU law; I am about to come to the issue addressed by the scheme.
Although the benefits of the new technology are plain, it is clear that at the end of the day, electronic logbooks and satellite tracking devices are essentially control tools. For that reason, the Government have contributed towards their capital cost in the past. We think it is right to continue to do so. The scheme therefore provides funding to smaller fishing vessels, as required by Community law. It has also been future-proofed
to allow for the funding of the installation of similar technology on vessels below 12 metres should a decision be taken in future to do so.I am therefore pleased to offer financial assistance to fishermen for the purchase of the necessary hardware and software. Similar assistance is being provided by other fisheries Administrations in the United Kingdom and in other member states. In England, the scheme will be administered by the Marine Management Organisation.
We have appointed a single supplier of VMS equipment. However, for the electronic logbook software, we have aimed to ensure best value for money by adopting a type-approval process by which any software supplier can submit their product for approval. Six software systems have been approved so far, which will offer fishermen a choice of software to meet their needs and will introduce competition between suppliers.
Grant aid will be made available only for approved software systems. Nevertheless, I recognise that some fishermen may wish to purchase more sophisticated software that contains functions beyond those necessary to comply with our EU obligations. I believe that it is therefore reasonable to place a limit on the financial assistance that we will provide, and I propose to limit the total amount of funding available to English fishing vessels to £4,500 each.
On that basis, the overall cost of the funding scheme is not expected to exceed £769,500 for the 171 or so English vessels over 12 metres. Some 90% of that sum is recoverable from Community funds under the EU aid regime, which provides co-financing for member states’ expenditure on statutory control measures. The remaining amount will be found from existing budgets.
The modest costs of the scheme will deliver real benefits to both fishermen and fisheries Administrations and so provide value for money for fishermen and the taxpayer. I therefore hope that hon. Members will welcome the scheme.
4.35 pm
Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. The Minister was typically self-disparaging, but he was clear in his remarks about the scheme. Perhaps he should speak more often on the subject of fish.
I extend my apologies on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris), newly appointed to the role of spokesman on fisheries. He is a formidable opponent—so formidable that it seems that the Minister’s colleague has gone to Panama. I am afraid that my hon. Friend, however, is not anywhere quite as glamorous. We will have to wait for another occasion for a match-up between those two titans of this Parliament.
We do not oppose the scheme. Following the extension of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1224/2009 that requires all vessels between 12 metres and 15 metres to have fully functioning electronic logbooks and satellite-based position monitoring on board fishing vessels, it is clear that a funding scheme is required to provide for the payment of that equipment. The installation of satellite-tracking devices and electronic logbooks on board fishing vessels is a positive step in promoting better working practices across the fishing industry. We hope that the transition to an electronic system will provide a more effective and
efficient method of determining what fish are being caught and what locations the stocks are being fished from, and potentially address the ongoing problems of discards. Any steps that are taken to improve industry standards to ensure the preservation of fish stocks will be supported by the Opposition. I hope that the Minister will continue to work hard to push for better working standards across the fishing industry.The industry, however, has rightly raised concerns about who would meet the cost of implementing the new regulations. I am grateful to the Minister for outlining his thoughts in that regard. A large proportion of businesses in the fish-catching industry are classified as small and medium-sized businesses. It is therefore right to cover the costs of purchasing and installing the software and hardware system, which are essentially tools to enforce a policy that we are signatories to, the common fisheries policy.
With 90% of the funding coming from the EU, we also welcome the apparent lack of impact that the funding scheme will have on our public sector. The Minister outlined that the remaining 10% of the required funding will come from the administrative body responsible for the scheme, the Marine Management Organisation. The explanatory memorandum reassures us that the costs will be met using existing resources. I want to ask a few questions about that.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab): Before my hon. Friend asks his questions, I am sure that he will have noted that paragraph 15(3)(c) refers to the power, of which the Minister will be aware, to recover payments for the equipment should they have been inappropriately made. The rate on which those repayments will be based will be linked to the LIBOR rate. Is my hon. Friend aware of any concern in the industry, in the light of the extraordinary scandal that has become apparent over the past few days? Is he of the view that the type of reassurance that the industry might welcome about the fact that such fixing could not take place in the future, and therefore attract a penalty to them, might be a full judge-led, independent inquiry?
Gavin Shuker: I am extremely grateful, as I am sure the Committee is, for my right hon. Friend’s insightful wisdom. At the heart of that particular scandal, there are real lives and businesses. I am sure that the actions that Parliament will take this week will go a long way to addressing the his concerns. Perhaps the Minister will reflect on that.
Mention of those businesses affected by the scandal leads us to questions about the businesses that will be affected by the scheme under discussion. Will the Minister explain why the money available to each vessel has been capped at £4,500, and how many vessels might have to spend more than that in order to comply with the regulations?
The Minister said that 10% will be taken from the MMO. My rough calculation of the figure, based on his remarks, is £77,000. What part of the MMO’s budget will that money be taken from? Will any of the MMO’s existing funded work have to be cut back in order to fund the payment?
When will the scheme be implemented, and have the Government put in place a timetable for the completion of the works? If the European Union sets a deadline on
widening the regulation, will the Government be able to meet it with the resources available? I will conclude my remarks there, because I am sure that other Members wish to take part in the debate.4.41 pm
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson, and to follow the hon. Gentleman, whose constructive engagement I welcome. It is clear that the Opposition will not oppose the statutory instrument, which is a helpful and constructive contribution in itself.
I have given the Minister advance notice of the three questions that I wish to ask. I do not wish to detain the Committee for any longer than is necessary, particularly because the statutory instrument will be approved. On the background, I support the approach taken by both the previous and present Governments to migrate away from a form of fisheries management that depended far too much on the single blunt instrument of quotas for total allowable catches. That was a simplistic method of managing fisheries. The introduction of satellite surveillance, particularly of larger vessels, and its progressive migration down through the class sizes of the fleet, will enable the industry, which is clearly engaged through the regional advisory councils—we hope that they will ultimately become regional management councils—to encourage, along with the MMO and other regulators, a much more sophisticated method of encouraging sustainable fishing. That means migrating from a quota-based system to one that depends on seasonal closed areas and the use of technology to track vessels in order to ensure that they do not plunder the stocks or prosecute the fisheries of those areas when they are closed. That will enable both the industry and the regulators to take the industry forward. It is an extremely welcome step, and the sooner we attach that mechanism to all commercial fishing vessels, the better.
My first question relates to a concern that has been well articulated to the Department and the MMO by the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations and its chief executive, Barrie Deas. It centres on the risk taken by the Government and the MMO by creating a monopoly supplier of the hardware. The Minister mentioned the software that underpins the mechanism. It is helpful and reassuring to know that there will be a minimum of six software suppliers, but the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations believes that the Government will, in their approach to the matter, create a monopoly supplier of hardware. The NFFO expressed concern about a monopoly when the VMS system was established on the over-15 metre vessels. It is worried that the company it believes will be granted single-supplier status exploited its monopoly position then, and fears that that might be happening again. It would be helpful if the Minister commented on that.
Secondly, to what extent have Ministers considered methods whereby the derogation in relation to day boats and boats fishing exclusively within the territorial limits might be used appropriately?
Thirdly, Seafish has been trialling and developing a system of inshore vessel-based mobile phone technology that is cheaper than satellite for inshore vessels. That might be a better, cheaper option for day boats and boats operating within the territorial limits, and for the Government and the taxpayer.
I hope that the Minister is aware of my questions about the risk of creating a monopoly supplier, the development of mobile phone technology and the extent to which the derogation is being used by the Government, particularly in the context of their own red tape challenge and avoiding unnecessary regulation and bureaucracy being applied to an industry such as fisheries, having been given advance notice of them, and that he responds to them.
The statutory instrument is most welcome and the sooner it can be rolled out, the better; and the further it can be rolled out through the industry, the better, too.
4.48 pm
Mr Paice: I thank the hon. Member for Luton South and my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives for their comments and questions. The hon. Member for Luton South mentioned that the hon. Member for Glasgow South is absent, but declined to explain why. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Under-Secretary would far rather be here than sitting in the International Whaling Commission discussions, wherever they may be.
The hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned the wider issues to do with fisheries policy, as did my hon. Friend, particularly the shameful waste that is termed “discards”. I had hoped that the hon. Member for Luton South would pay tribute to the work of the Under-Secretary on pushing the Commission towards the position that it has now got to, with the Council agreeing in principle to abolish the discards system. That is a dramatic step forward. As the hon. Gentleman says, the provision of the technology that we are discussing should, in part, help that ambition.
The hon. Gentleman asked specifically about numbers of vessels that might need to have more than £4,500 spent on them. We think that the answer is nil. People can choose to opt for a higher specification system—we will make a contribution to it—but we do not believe that many will need to pay more than £4,500 unless they choose to do so. As I said, the money will come from the Marine Management Organisation. It has assured us that nothing needs to be cut to accommodate this relatively small sum of money. We expect all vessels in the category to be equipped by the end of the calendar year.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives for giving me early sight of his questions. On the VMS provision to which he referred, he will be aware that the previous provider stopped production last year. We have therefore had to undertake a public procurement exercise to find a new supplier, which is being done under the appropriate provisions. I hope to alleviate the concerns of my hon. Friend and the industry on the
possible downside of having a single supplier by saying that as part of the procurement process, we have required that the supplier should provide a three-year maintenance contract with an option for the boat owner to extend it for a further two years. That should minimise the possibility of the monopoly being exploited in the way that my hon. Friend described, and I hope that helps him to allay his concerns. We clearly do not want the monopoly to be exploited in the manner he described.My hon. Friend also asked about the Seafish trials. To the best of my knowledge, the trials have been extremely successful. After two years of testing and development, the project has succeeded in demonstrating that a market-ready solution is available for monitoring the activities of inshore vessels. As he said, it is cheaper than the current VMS and offers other opportunities in terms of effort reporting, vessel and crew safety and scientific data. From the industry’s perspective, the trial has been a success, but I must emphasise that the equipment does not meet EU requirements for the category. Limiting its use to inshore only would significantly reduce its potential in terms of some over-12 metre vessels.
In response to my hon. Friend’s question about the derogation for day boats, I hesitate to say this, but the short answer is no. The longer answer is that the derogation is available for 12 to 15 metre vessels only, and we believe that at most only 87—about half—of English vessels in the length band would qualify. Moreover, if the terms of the exemption were broken on even one occasion, the vessels would no longer qualify and the owners would have to fit VMS and electronic logbook equipment at their own cost, with no Government support.
As we described, logbooks and VMS are a valuable source of information in monitoring and controlling vessels. The use of the electronic logbooks will further enhance the timeliness and management of the controls, and there are obviously many other advantages that I have already described. Applying the derogation would remove all those benefits, so we do not propose to make use of it. The other UK fisheries Administrations share that view, and none of them will make use of the derogation.
In conclusion, I thank hon. Members for their contributions. The extension of the technology to smaller vessels will improve the reliability of catch data and, as the hon. Member for Luton South said, will reduce the opportunities to cheat for those few who may be inclined to do so, which must be good for fish stocks. It will improve the way that fisheries data are gathered, and the costs to the Exchequer are modest. I commend the scheme to the Committee.