House of Commons - Agriculture

Select Committee on Agriculture Eighth Report

V. REGULATION, MONITORING, INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT

110. The fishing industry in the UK is overseen by a variety of regulatory and enforcement bodies. Policy issues are decided by the four UK Fisheries Departments, ie. MAFF and its equivalents in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Following devolution, the UK Government remains responsible for negotiations in the EU but responsibilities for sea fisheries issues have been devolved to the new institutions. The Welsh Assembly has more limited powers than its counterparts in Scotland and Northern Ireland in that it will not have specific powers in relation to vessels registered in Welsh ports and its jurisdiction will be restricted to the 12 mile zone, rather than a defined zone within British Fisheries Limits.[404] MAFF, as the lead department on EU fisheries matters, has undertaken to "involve the devolved administrations as directly and fully as possible in the Government's decision-making".[405]

111. These arrangements are only provisional: the final version of "the general framework for the conduct of business in the devolved areas" (the so-called 'concordat') covering fishing is "well advanced",[406] but we are concerned at the time it is taking to reach agreement and to publish the document. The recent furore over the drawing of the eastern sea boundary between England and Scotland illustrates the potential for conflict and misunderstanding and we wish to see this minimised by having the responsibilities of the various parties and the framework within which they are to operate clearly set out. We recommend that the Government attend to the publication of the concordat on fisheries management as a matter of urgency. The nature of devolution also means that there is potential for differing treatment of fishermen in the various parts of the UK. Indeed, the SFF openly hoped that fishing would get more attention from a Scottish Parliament than it had from Westminster, given its proportionally greater contribution to the Scottish economy.[407] While this expectation is quite reasonable, more advantageous treatment for Scottish fishermen would only add to the divide which already exists within the UK fishing industry and lead to even louder accusations of lack of parity.

112. Even prior to devolution, enforcement of fisheries controls was managed in different ways within the United Kingdom. The responsible body for England and Wales is MAFF's Sea Fisheries Inspectorate, which employs the Royal Navy for control at sea. English and Welsh inshore waters also come under the jurisdiction of twelve Sea Fisheries Committees, funded by local authorities, which are empowered to make bylaws to promote and regulate fishing activity within their district. The Environment Agency (EA) has a similar role to play in managing fisheries in estuaries. Although each of these bodies has distinct powers and duties and we accept their combined protestations that there is close liaison between them where necessary,[408] there is evidently some conflict, particularly between the SFCs and the EA. We were given the example of the eel fisheries in the Humber, where on the South bank "the local SFC is the licensing body and has chosen not to issue licences yet on the North bank the Agency issues licences".[409] These 'inconsistencies' as the EA describes them certainly add to the tension between fishermen and managers in these areas. The Association of Sea Fisheries Committees (ASFC) considered that "there are two or three estuaries that really want tidying up", and on the specific issue of eel fisheries, "this is a nonsense in terms of policing and it ought to be addressed, quite frankly; whether it goes one way or the other, it ought to be addressed".[410] We agree. We recommend that the jurisdiction of the Sea Fisheries Committees and the Environment Agency be reviewed to ensure consistency of approach within individual fisheries.

113. In Scotland inspection and enforcement is the responsibility of an agency of the Scottish Executive, the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency (SFPA). We met officers from the agency in both Aberdeen and Shetland, and took formal evidence from the Chief Executive and others in Peterhead. For the last three years the agency has undertaken all enforcement and inspection activities, including those at sea. The Chief Executive of the SFPA regretted that the agency had had to dispense with the services of the Royal Navy in Scotland because "we basically could not afford to fund the contract ... and we were having to put more priority on our levels of inspection ashore".[411] However, he also saw some advantage in being "a co-ordinated organisation", pointing out that "We are unique within the European Union in that we have all our enforcement resources operating under the one command".[412] This allowed the agency to use aerial, marine and shore resources together to meet its objectives.[413] The operations of the SFPA are strictly outside the remit of this Committee but we have learned much from our discussions with them in relation to MAFF's operations and we are grateful to officials of the agency for their ready co-operation. Also outside our immediate remit is the work of the Fisheries Inspectorate in Northern Ireland but, as with the Scottish example, much of our discussion on enforcement in England and Wales applies equally to the other parts of the UK.

114. A developing new partner in fisheries control and enforcement in the UK is the PO system. We have already discussed the role of the POs in quota management, which involves considerable administration. The CFPO argued that POs were "taking on more and more management from MAFF" and that "Given the amount of paperwork that MAFF is delegating to the POs and talking about effort management and monitoring ... we do need some kind of subsidy to keep the POs going".[414] This plea was based on the impact of decommissioning which had left fewer members to pay the PO subscriptions. However, moves into quota ownership as described in the previous section or into entrepreneurial activities such as processing as we saw in Shetland may radically alter the finances of the POs. At the moment, the Pos are in an ambiguous position. The CFPO complained about the duplication in its work and that done by MAFF. Each landing sheet "is submitted in triplicate form and one copy goes to the PO and one to MAFF and it is entered almost identically by MAFF and by the POs so there is absolute duplication there".[415] The Minister explained that this was necessary because "we do have to have a certain element of external audit ... of POs".[416] On the other hand, as the NFFO told us, "The delegation of quota management responsibilities from Government to POs has been widely regarded as a success and may provide a model for other member states".[417] Furthermore, again according to the NFFO, the European Commission "views them as a major vehicle for future CFP initiatives in relation to adjusting to globalisation of the market and in managing resources",[418] and the Minister also stressed "I have always been a supporter of the PO structure, and, indeed, as a Government, we want actually to enhance the role of the POs".[419]

115. A strategy is needed to manage the development of the POs and to define their place in the UK fisheries management structure. If they are to take on a policing role, there is little point in their work being duplicated wholesale by MAFF itself, especially given the potential of electronic exchange of information. However, one of the strengths of the POs - the diversity in their individual structures and activities which reflects their membership - may make it impractical to devolve further responsibilities on all POs in a uniform manner. Some areas of the country are poorly served in this respect, others have perhaps too many organisations for fishermen to choose or move between. Some POs would like to take on the management of the under 10 metre fleet. There is also the position of the non-sector to consider where owners have chosen not to join POs and we see a need to establish a mechanism for vessel owners to appeal against expulsion from a PO or refusal of membership. We recommend that the Government set out its objectives for the future role of POs, including the devolvement of further responsibilities in order to streamline the management process, taking into account the cost and ability of POs to take on those responsibilities, and the position of the non-sector fleet. Duplication of tasks between willing POs and MAFF should be eliminated, subject to appropriate audit checks.

REGULATIONS

116. Sea fishing is one of the most highly regulated industries in the UK. The NFFO complained that "From the quantity of fish landed, to size of fish landed, gear used, size of vessels, size of engine, where and when the fish is landed and much more, is all subject to regulation".[420] These regulations largely stem from the implementation of the various technical conservation measures and quota restrictions agreed by the Member States under the CFP. In many cases, Member States can choose the means of fulfilling the requirements of these measures, leading to accusations that the UK is more stringent in its implementation than other countries and less willing to contribute towards the cost of compliance. Individual states are of course free to devise other country-specific regulations as long as they are in keeping with the central tenets of the CFP. Such unilateral legislation has also drawn fire from the UK fishing industry. We therefore first examine the regulatory system in general, before looking at an example of EU legislation implemented differently in the UK and an example of UK-inspired action.

117. The NFFO opened its commentary on regulations by pronouncing that "That the fishing industry is over regulated is beyond dispute".[421] Looking at the number of regulations with which fishermen have to comply, it is hard to challenge this statement. Equally, it is difficult to identify individual regulations which are superfluous, given the nature of the management system and the imperative of stock conservation. In an initial memorandum submitted in November 1998 the UK Fisheries Departments listed nine initiatives on which "progress has been made in EU negotiations" since the summer of 1997, a further three "areas where improvements are currently being, or will shortly be discussed in the EU" and no fewer than twelve steps taken "within the EU rules to make the CFP work better in the UK", all of which impact directly upon the fishing industry, with the exception of the new research vessel for CEFAS.[422] When this memorandum was updated in June 1999, seven months later, the Government indicated that ten new measures had been approved at the December Council of Ministers to take effect from 1 July 1999 or 1 January 2000, to which can be added the UK initiative on designated ports, the implementation of satellite monitoring and announcements on a further eight changes in management or fresh consultations.[423] Some of these initiatives are duplicated in the two memoranda and many of them are no doubt welcome to the industry. However, the list illustrates the ever-changing nature of the regulatory system which made the Anglo-North Irish Fishermen's Organisation declare the industry "an administrative and bureaucratic nightmare" and call for "breathing space in order to regain ... confidence".[424] The fishermen we spoke to in Cornwall told us that the system was "relatively easy to understand"[425] but we have great sympathy with those elsewhere in the UK who complained about the amount of form-filling that had to be achieved even at sea and the lack of flexibility in interpretation of the regulations.

118. One particular example put to us was the single licence rule in the pelagic sector. A vessel may have annual quota entitlements for a number of different pelagic stocks in different areas but may carry only one licence to fish one of these on any one voyage. If, for example, a skipper goes to sea with a North Sea herring licence, he cannot fish in any other area for any other pelagic species on the same voyage, and must return to port and change over his licence before doing so. We accept that there are reasons behind this seemingly crazy situation which are connected to infringements in the past on the part of some pelagic vessels,[426] and we note that the Minister is planning to re-examine the regulations once satellite monitoring is in force.[427] Nevertheless, we appreciate that such rules build up resentment within the industry where law-abiding fishermen are put to considerable inconvenience by the activities of others. This is a clear case where modern technology should be brought in to assist the industry and the management. Mr Du Vivier of the SFPA agreed that "there is scope for bringing the whole licensing business, the issuing of licences, more into the electronic age".[428] He believed that this would happen, although his Director of Corporate Strategy and Resources indicated concerns about the legal need to ensure licences are properly received.[429] The single licence rule was introduced by the UK Government and is applicable only to UK waters. It could therefore be rescinded by Ministers at will if they were convinced that the problem could be handled in other ways. For the moment, while we favour a radical re-think of that policy, we recommend that the Government make more use of electronic communications in licence issues, particularly with regard to the single licence rule for the pelagic fleet.

119. Most fishermen would accept that rules are necessary to protect the fish and the rights of the law-abiding. Their objection is mainly to what the SFF described as "the multiplicity and interaction of the regulations",[430] especially as regards the apparent lack of co-ordination between the agencies implementing the many measures to which the fleet is subjected and of any attempt "to assess the aggregate effect of these restrictions or their impact on the operations of the fleet".[431] We asked the Government for details of the compliance costs to the UK fishing industry of recent legislation. In response, the UK Fisheries Departments stated that they "consider very carefully the cost implications of regulations affecting the fishing industry and seek to ensure that any additional burdens are kept to a minimum."[432] Regulatory Impact Assessments are prepared for all new proposals and made available to the industry. They estimated that planned amendments to the EU control regulations would add £1.19m a year to bring the total annual cost to industry to £4.46m, whilst other changes would cost a further £1.25m. However, we were disturbed to learn that the Departments "do not hold detailed information on compliance costs arising from regulations other than those for which they directly responsible".[433] These costs can be considerable, as indicated by information from the MCA on safety legislation where compliance costs for each of the eight regulations specified ranged from nothing to £16,000 per vessel.[434] We find it difficult to see how the UK Fisheries Departments can accurately judge the regulatory burden on the industry without access to the data from other parts of Government. We recommend that the Government prepare an audit of all regulations and their compliance costs relating to the UK fishing fleet and that this work be used as a database which can be updated to provide accurate and accessible information on the regulatory burden when considering new measures. We also recommend that similar audits and databases be established for compliance costs with regulations in each of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

120. The question of regulatory costs is all the more important as one of the bitterest complaints of fishermen against the system is the lack of equity with their counterparts in Europe. If the Government does not have the necessary information, it is next to impossible for Ministers to combat charges that UK fishermen are uniquely disadvantaged. The NFFO listed six areas in which it felt that an unequal financial burden was put on the industry in the UK, ranging from payment of light dues to the lack of access to early retirement schemes.[435] It claimed that, in addition to the reluctance of the UK Government to take up EU funding because of the Fontainebleau agreement, "wherever a decision is made either to charge the industry or to meet it out of central funds, the decision has gone against the industry".[436] Mr Deas, the NFFO Chief Executive, did not have any information on relative costs in other EU states.[437] Nor did the SFIA, which confessed that "It is extremely difficult to actually get the costs and the profit structure, even in our own industry, across all sectors, because we are very reliant on the industry itself giving us the data".[438] This information had not been forthcoming even within the UK.[439] Again we approached the Government for comparative data on compliance costs for other Member States. Not surprisingly, Departments did not hold such information[440] and their attempts to elicit it from the European Commission were not very fruitful as the EC had "not undertaken comparative research on the cost to the fishing industry of compliance with the regulatory framework".[441] This ignorance extends further. Other costs which press heavily on the industry here such as dock and landing charges and the heavy burdens of the Waste Water Directive, as well as the reduction of costs through grants, loans and other means of support, are all unrecorded making it impossible to verify whether the UK industry is being asked to compete on equal and fair terms. We cannot accept this situation. We recommend that the Government either commission itself or bring pressure to bear on the European Commission to initiate research into the comparative costs to the fishing industry of compliance with the regulatory framework in the different Member States, of other charges pressing on it and the comparative levels of support.

121. Coupled to the belief that the UK Government imposes greater charges on its industry is the conviction that EU regulations are implemented more rigorously in this country than in others. For example, the Grimsby Fishing Vessel Owners' Association wrote that "There is a very strong feeling in this port that the application and implementation of many regulations in the UK are rigidly applied unlike many of the EC countries",[442] whilst the PO which represents the same members complained that "The UK has always been ahead of the game in this field and the present government's attitude to fishing appears to be a growing determination to make it a crime to fish at all".[443] There are two aspects to these accusations of inequity. First, that the UK is too stringent and second that other countries are too lax. It is difficult to prove either point to anyone's satisfaction. For example, the NFFO referred to tonnage remeasurement as a specific issue on which a different approach had been adopted by the UK Government.[444] However, the SFIA told us that while it was true that "in a number of States there are government funds to assist fishermen in carrying out this activity", Britain was behind the other countries in implementing the measure.[445]

122. On the general question, the Minister did not agree that there was such a discrepancy in the implementation of European regulations. Moreover, he assured us that "Whenever I hear these allegations I always invite people to give us evidence of this, and we will always, always, follow this up, check it out, and if there are cases where we are applying something in a way which other countries are not then, of course, we will look at that, or if there are countries who are not applying regulations in the way that they should then we will take appropriate action".[446] It is clearly difficult for the industry itself to carry out or finance research which should be a government and an EU responsibility. It should be possible for UK embassies in the various states to gather information on specific regulations. We recommend that UK diplomatic posts be charged with monitoring the means of implementing EU directives and the costs pressing on the industry in other Member States and that this information be disseminated to the UK industry. Where there are clear discrepancies in approach, the UK Government should provide an explanation for the additional requirements it has introduced, although the presumption should always be in favour of ensuring UK fishermen are treated equally with their counterparts in other Member States. The approach to regulation should always be guided by the principles we set out in paragraph 3 of this Report.

Satellite monitoring

123. An issue of particular topicality is that of satellite monitoring. Under a Council decision, vessels over 24 metres in length will be obliged to carry satellite monitoring equipment by 1 January 2000. This applies to UK, other Community and third country vessels fishing in EU waters. Information from the satellite tracking system will be used to monitor the whereabouts of all vessels and hence is intended to "complement existing aerial and surface surveillance and ... progressively enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of fisheries enforcement within the UK and across the Community".[447] The SFPA estimated that some 500 UK registered vessels would be affected, around 280 of which operated in Scotland.[448] The agency was working on the establishment of "systems to ensure that there is a proper exchange of real time satellite monitoring data" between MAFF and itself. It estimated its own costs for the process as decreasing from £330,000 in 1998-99 (including capital and running costs) to £35,000 in 2001-02.[449]

124. Among the industry, there were some who objected to the whole concept of satellite monitoring, seeing its imposition as "draconian and an infringement of civil liberties".[450] However, most could see advantages in the system as it would be an "invaluable [tool] to achieve correct use of fisheries by entitled vessels",[451] and could create "some scope for reducing the reporting requirements", for example, for vessels in the Western Waters and the Shetland Box.[452] On behalf of the enforcement agencies, the SFPA pointed out that satellite monitoring could not replace other inspections since "What the satellite is not going to tell us is what the fishing vessel is doing, that it is fishing for what it is licensed for, it is merely going to tell us that vessel is there at that time".[453] This view was repeated by the Minister but he has undertaken to see if satellite monitoring, once applied, "could remove some of the restrictions which are currently placed on [the industry]".[454]

125. Such a review would no doubt please the fishermen if it achieved positive results but it would not address the chief objection to satellite monitoring which is the decision of the UK Government that vessel owners should pay for the necessary equipment and its installation. This has caused outrage among the industry, whose representatives told us that the decision of Commissioner Bonino that "a 100 per cent community grant would be made available to the fleets in installing this equipment ... was a very important element, we believe, in securing support in the Fisheries Council for this measure".[455] In the event, the UK is the only Member State not to avail itself of these grants, while fishermen in other countries are to be compensated for the costs of installation. For example, we were told in Spain that fishermen could receive public funding for the basic equipment, leaving them free to upgrade to more sophisticated systems if they wished. UK fishermen therefore feel misled and unfairly treated.

126. The Minister has been consistent in his view that there are no public funds available to subsidise the installation of satellite equipment. He stressed to us the constraints of the Fontainebleau agreement and also his judgement that "the case for public funding is not a terribly strong one", given that for the current round of vessels the average annual landings "is something in the region of just under £700,000, [whereas] the cost is between £3,000 and £8,000" for installation.[456] In a letter to the NFFO, he also indicated the additional benefits to fishermen "such as providing cheaper communication costs than marine radio, secure messaging facilities and access to commercial information services".[457] Satellite systems also enhance safety at sea by allowing faster rescue in case of disaster. However, these factors are unlikely to assuage the industry's anger. Nor will the confirmation we received from the Commission that it was now too late for the UK to change its mind and access the available funds.

127. The dispute over satellite monitoring is not going to disappear. The EC believed that, although the UK "has fortunately moved from an unfavourable position to a much stronger one", it was still behind countries such as Portugal, Germany, Denmark and Spain in the setting up of the required control and information management centre and in the number of vessels equipped with the systems.[458] Arrangements are supposed to be already in place for all vessels over 24 metres operating on the high seas or engaged in industrial fishing.[459] The UK Fisheries Departments as of 4 June had one vessel reporting its position, with 26 in the process of linking up, and were receiving position reports from Danish industrial fishing vessels in UK waters.[460] The difficulty is that far more vessels are involved in the next stage and we have heard anecdotal reports that there may be significant non-compliance. These problems will be compounded if, as is likely, the requirements are extended to vessels under 24 metres,[461] a sector which is not making the kind of earnings described by the Minister. We take the Minister's point that fishing "is not the only industry that does have to accept costs, in relation to management".[462] However, this is clearly a Treasury-driven decision and one which has the unwelcome effect of confirming the prejudices of some in the industry against the entire management system. We recommend that if the satellite monitoring requirements are extended to vessels under 24 metres in length the Government either take up any EU funding available to subsidise the installation of the necessary equipment by the industry or produce reductions in the regulatory burden on fishermen to balance the costs.