---

Fishing Boats (Satellite-Tracking Devices) (England) Scheme 2004

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton rose to move, That the draft scheme laid before the House on 21 September be approved [30th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, before I describe this statutory instrument, I would like to draw to your Lordships' attention a typographical error in the version of the instrument before us today. In paragraph 8(1)(b), dealing with powers of authorised officers, the reference to paragraph 3(1)(d) should in fact be to paragraph 3(1). Unfortunately, this error was not picked up until Monday of this week when the instrument was debated and passed in another place. We have made efforts to alert your Lordships to this error and we will ensure that the typographical error in the instrument will be corrected when the instrument is printed in the annual bound volume of statutory instruments. In addition, a correction slip has been placed in the Printed Paper Office in order that your Lordships can see what the bound volume will say. I can only offer apologies to your Lordships.

The scheme under debate today provides funding for the installation of satellite tracking devices on English fishing vessels. These devices are required by EU law by all fishing vessels over 15 metres from 1 January next year, but the Government announced in
 
4 Nov 2004 : Column 471
 
December 2003 that they would meet the full costs of supplying and fitting them. It may help if I explain why we agreed to do so.

Satellite monitoring of fishing vessels forms an essential element of the control programme by which we monitor fishing activities. It enables the exact position of fishing vessels to be monitored on an ongoing basis through the provision of two hourly position reports. EU law has required vessels of more than 24 metres to carry a satellite tracking device since January 2000. In December 2002, to improve the effectiveness of member states' control measures, the Council of Ministers decided that that requirement should be extended to vessels of more than 15 metres.

Terminals on vessels of more than 24 metres have proved a most valuable tool in monitoring fishing activity, but have been susceptible to tampering and abuse. The detailed rules adopted in December 2003 therefore require member states to take measures to ensure that satellite tracking devices fitted to fishing vessels are tamper-resistant. To ensure that devices on UK fishing vessels are tamper-resistant, we have undertaken a public procurement exercise, appointed a preferred supplier and drawn up a detailed technical specification. It is the intention, once it has been approved by the Commission, that only devices meeting the specification may be fitted on British vessels.

The device will be dedicated to position-reporting. It will be used purely for control purposes and will yield no direct operational or economic benefit to the vessel owner. Because of that, it has been decided that Defra will meet the costs of fitting them to those vessels for which it is the licensing authority in England. Those costs—around £2,400 per vessel—cover the supply and installation of the device plus a three-year warranty. Similar funding arrangements are or will be in place in the devolved administrations.

To avoid placing an unnecessary administrative burden on the industry, the scheme provides for funding to be provided directly to the authorised supplier. Once that is done and the device is fitted and operational, it will become the property of the vessel owner. They will then be responsible for meeting transmission costs for the two-hourly position reports required under EU rules. Those costs should be no more than £300 per annum.

As I indicated, the extension of the requirement significantly strengthens tools to support the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources. Government funding of the provision of the devices will go a significant way towards removing any additional financial burden on the industry. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft scheme laid before the House on 21 September be approved [30th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)

Baroness Byford: My Lords, we welcome and support the statutory instrument. We are very grateful to the noble Baroness for the way in which she brought the correction slip to our attention, and indeed to her office, which notified us on Tuesday that there was a problem.
 
4 Nov 2004 : Column 472
 

As the noble Baroness said, the scheme provides powers for Defra to fund fully the installation of tamper-resistant satellite tracking devices on all English-administered fishing vessels of more than 15 metres in overall length. She indicated that the devolved countries would address the issue, but has necessary legislation been put in place for that to happen in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland? Will their fishermen gain equal funding to that enjoyed by English fishermen under the scheme?

I understand that the lifetime of the equipment is 10 years, but that the warranty covers only the first three. Will the individual owners have to take insurance cover in case anything goes wrong with the equipment and it has to be renewed in any way? My next question arises from that. Very sensibly, the Government have gone out to public procurement and, in doing so, have reduced the original cost from £3,300 to £2,100, for which everyone will be grateful. Has any consideration been given to a bulk insurance policy? If one could get a cheaper procurement policy, it seems logical that one might devise a bulk insurance policy for those fishermen, whether privately or in another way. They will obviously have to take out some form of insurance cover.

The statutory instrument applies to all fishermen, who have to comply with the same standard. To me, that includes those EU member states and non-EU member states that fish in the waters. Will the Minister tell us more fully what waters are covered by the scheme? That is not defined in it, so I was left wondering how far and wide it went. I should be grateful for clarification.

It has been said that, unfortunately, some countries in the EU have in the past slightly tampered with their satellite procedures, to put it in very careful English. Can the Minister reassure us that there will be no possibility of someone covering up their tampering procedures and so not activating the equipment? That is crucial. I have heard that, in one example, if a bucket was put on top of the equipment the message was not sent. It is all very well having sophisticated schemes, but however good they are, if someone can block them they become useless. Can the Minister tell us a little about that?

In the other place, where the statutory instrument was taken through on Monday, the question of whether people abused the system arose. The Minister's colleague, Ben Bradshaw, said that there would be a fine of up to £50,000, and that the Government would take it up with the individual nation or the Commission. How confident is she that they will succeed in eradicating any malpractices? How quickly will they be dealt with?

The Explanatory Memorandum tells us that there were 157 inspectors, 16 patrol boats and four aircraft in 2002. I suspect that the total is very similar today, although there might be a few changes. Presumably those people cover all the vessels within UK waters; I am not sure what waters we are defining. Presumably it is not only English boats that are monitored, but all boats fishing within the parameter.
 
4 Nov 2004 : Column 473
 

I am sorry to be a little specific with some of those questions, but it is important that we clarify them. Having sat through the previous statutory instrument—it was about compensation for people in Wales—I think it very important that it is on record that those who have qualifying boats in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland will also get the free and funded equipment from their respective governments.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I too welcome the introduction of the scheme by the Minister. One problem in being second to respond is that many of the points that I wish to make have already been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. I congratulate her on the way in which she has tackled the matter.

The legislation is very important indeed. It is a step forward of substance for fisheries around the British Isles, in the whole of the European Union and, to some extent, beyond. We welcome the fact that the scheme will be funded by Defra to 100 per cent grant-aided conditions in England. I associate myself with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, as we also hope very much that that will occur in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland as well.

The technology is extremely interesting, in terms of the detection and identification of fishing vessels and the ability for any false positions of them to be identified, which seems very necessary. The benefits of monitoring and surveillance at sea will be of great assistance in the enforcement of the common fisheries policy.

Regarding the regulatory impact—I am grateful for the correction to the document. Two alert colleagues of mine in the committee in the other place identified the problem, which has rapidly been put right. I am grateful for that. It encompasses the Sea Fishing (Enforcement and Community Satellite Monitoring Measures) Order and the Fishing Boats (Satellite-Tracking Devices) (England) Scheme. It was stated that the sea fishing and community satellite monitoring order was still being drafted. Why is that the case and is the Minister in a position to say something about that? It seems rather strange that we are debating something that has not yet been fully drafted. There may be a good explanation for that.

The purchase and installation of equipment for fishing boats is extremely useful and achieves enforcement, conservation and sustainable exploitation of fishing seas. I should like to make a couple of points that were raised in the European Union Sub-Committee D, when we were examining the Common Fisheries Policy. There is no doubt that over the years, particularly the past decade, we identified what we call the "technological efficiency creep" of the ability of the trawlermen to rapidly find where the fish were and to use much more efficient methods of taking them out of the water. Clearly, there is a need for more surveillance in that respect and we touched on that during Questions yesterday.

There needs to be better deployment of the patrol vessels and the aircraft that have been mentioned. My understanding is that there are only nine patrol vessels
 
4 Nov 2004 : Column 474
 
around the waters of England and Wales. There are others in Northern Ireland and Scotland. That seems to be very few to do an enormous job. When one considers the number of boats coming in, not only from the UK but from other places, those patrol vessels must be stretched, even though about 60 staff, or slightly more, are involved. It seems that they will be stretched most of the time, because, presumably, they must have rest periods as well.

I am sure that in the longer term, new developments regarding enforcement technology will come along. This is only the start. This legislation will improve the sustainability of fisheries around the UK and in the rest of the EU and is thoroughly to be welcomed. We hope that in future it will be even more effective in ensuring that we have some fish to catch.

---