Official Report 202KB pdf
Two explanatory notes are attached to this SSI. Members will note that, for the first time, an SSI has a regulatory impact assessment attached to it. We are the lead committee in consideration of this instrument and the deadline for parliamentary action is 10 March. This instrument has been laid under the negative procedure, which means that unless a formal motion to annul the order is agreed, it will come into effect. No such motion has been lodged, so the purpose of today's discussion is to examine the instrument.
The previous item includes provision for satellite monitoring. What is the relationship between the two orders?
My colleague, Philip Galbraith, will deal with that question.
There is a link between the two orders, but only within the Community regulations. Article 3 of council regulation 2847/93 introduces satellite monitoring of all vessels greater than 24 m in length. The control order implements all the other provisions of the council regulation. We could have included the satellite monitoring measures in the control order, but we thought that it would be more user friendly for fishermen if all the satellite monitoring measures were in the one order—that is why there is a separate order.
I have two questions. Given the advent of satellite monitoring, is the Executive planning to relax any other regulations, such as the designated ports regulation?
We are in discussion with the industry about the implications of satellite monitoring. I chaired the review group on pelagic fishermen, at which there was extensive discussion of opportunities for the relaxation of regulations in the light of satellite monitoring. Some modest relaxations have been introduced, and we have made it clear that the minister is open to negotiate further relaxations as and when we gain experience of satellite monitoring and the kind of evidence that it produces. That might allow us to lift some of the burden.
Are there any other questions?
There is my second question.
I did not quite catch your second question, Mr Lochhead.
It concerns the fisheries monitoring centre that each member state must set up. The UK is a member state. Will the monitoring centre be part of the Fisheries Protection Agency in Edinburgh?
Indeed. There are also monitoring centres in England and Northern Ireland. Each member state will have a monitoring centre as part of its enforcement agency.
I see in the regulations that the satellite monitoring system is to be compulsory on vessels that are up to 24 m in overall length.
Over 24 m.
Yes. Is there any suggestion that the regulations might apply to smaller vessels—of more than 10m in length, say?
At present, it is not proposed that they should. However, in their discussions the European Commission and the Council of Ministers have made it clear that that is an option that they want to keep open for the future.
Will the information from satellite monitoring be passed on to the coastguards? That would enable them, should there be a problem with any fishing boat, to pinpoint quickly where the boat is.
As you will see from the regulatory impact assessment that we have submitted, during our discussions with the industry leading up to implementation of satellite monitoring, it was suggested that the measure might have safety benefits for the industry. If a vessel had gone missing and there were real concerns for its safety, and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency contacted either our ships or our headquarters, I am sure that information to ensure the safe return of the vessel would be made available.
There are considerable cost implications in complying with this order. Who will meet the costs?
The intention is that the industry should meet the costs outlined in the memorandum. When this proposal was first discussed under the previous Administration, the view was taken that the costs were modest in relation to the income of this sector of the industry and that any Government subventions would reduce the resources available for other fishery support purposes. The present Government takes the same view.
Can you confirm that the costs do not apply to inshore vessels or vessels that are fishing within a day's sail of the coast?
I can.
Is it the case that in other European Union countries Governments have made assistance available to the industry to enable it to comply with these regulations?
I believe that that is correct. The Governments of some EU member states have elected to use their fisheries guidance money for this purpose. That option is open to all member states.
Do you have any idea how many EU states are doing that?
I do not have that information, although I believe that it is a significant number.
If the regulations were extended to vessels of less than 24 m in length, would the Executive be sympathetic to helping those vessels?
That is obviously a hypothetical question. We have made our judgment on the basis that the regulations currently apply to vessels of more than 24 m—big, valuable vessels that are involved in profitable undertakings. I would find it difficult to justify devoting very scarce resources to paying for equipment on those boats. If the regulations were to start applying to smaller vessels, other considerations might come into play. That is as much as I can say at this stage.
If there are no further questions, I will thank Dr Paul Brady and Mr Philip Galbraith for their assistance in answering questions on this issue. Are members content with the proposal?
If members are content with the proposal, we will conclude that the committee wishes to make no recommendation in its report to the Parliament.