Verbatim report of proceedings

Thursday, 14 June 2012 - Strasbourg

7. Stock of herring distributed to the west of Scotland (debate)

  President. − The next item is the report (A7-0145/2012) by Struan Stevenson, on behalf of the Committee on Fisheries, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1300/2008 of 18 December 2008 establishing a multiannual plan for the stock of herring distributed to the west of Scotland and the fisheries exploiting that stock (COM(2011)0760 - C7-0432/2011 - 2011/0345(COD))

  Struan Stevenson, rapporteur. − Mr President, the Danish Presidency informed me some weeks ago that there will be no fresh reading agreement on my report on a multiannual plan for west of Scotland herring.

This follows a similar blockage in Council on the implementation of Pat the Cope Gallagher’s report on a multiannual plan for the western stock of Atlantic horse mackerel, which has been log-jammed for the past three years. A report by Ms Bilbao Barandica on a multiannual plan for anchovy in the Bay of Biscay has been similarly blocked.

This is a pattern which has emerged not only in respect of fisheries reports, but across all the work of our parliamentary committees where delegated acts and implementing acts have been disputed.

My understanding is that the Council refuses to accept that, under the terms of the Treaty of Lisbon, it no longer has the sole right to determine such matters. I have suggested in my report on west of Scotland herring that, via delegated acts, the Commission will evaluate the implementation of multiannual plans in full consultation with the Pelagic RAC, the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas and the Scientific Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries. Parliament and the Council can veto the Commission recommendations under delegated acts. The alternative is to use implementing acts which give the Council more say in the evaluation of multiannual plans, but in this case Parliament can only give advice to the Commission and – of course – our advice can always be ignored.

It appears that this blockage in the Council is emanating from the official working groups, rather than from the Ministers themselves. The working groups are determined to retain ownership of all multiannual plans through the use of implementing acts under the terms of Article 43(3) TFEU, which gives them sole competence. Parliament and the Commission are demanding the right to deal with these multiannual plans under Article 43(2) TFEU, under the ordinary legislative procedure. Even the Council’s own legal services agree with Parliament and the Commission on this issue, but the Council remains steadfast in its opposition to delegated acts and the blockage seems set to continue.

In respect of the current reform of the common fisheries policy, this legislative blockage is very dangerous indeed. To bring stability to the market and to provide fishermen and processors with the necessary long-term security that high levels of investment in the industry require, multiannual management plans must be introduced for the main commercial stocks. How can we argue that there is not enough money in the EMFF to reintroduce subsidised new-build or modernisation for EU fishing vessels when we are unable to offer our fishermen the reassurance that they can borrow large sums of money from the bank to build or modernise their own vessels based on multiannual plans for fisheries management. No EU bank, particularly during the current economic crisis, will lend a fisherman up to EUR 2 million to build a new white fish vessel, unless he can show that there is a multiannual stock management plan in place that will give a concrete assurance of sustainable fishing over a long period.

The current situation is untenable and puts at risk the entire CFP reform process. If we end up going to the European courts to resolve this crisis, which looks increasingly likely, it could derail the entire timetable for CFP reform, and it is worth noting that we have no legal basis for a new reformed CFP after 1 January 2014. It is essential, therefore, that we resolve this issue. I look to the Cypriot Presidency to knock heads together in the Council to end this legislative log jam.

  John Dalli, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Stevenson, and the Committee on Fisheries for their work on this proposal.

With this proposal, we are aligning the management plan for west of Scotland herring to the Treaty of Lisbon. As with previous management plans, we again face the risk of an institutional disagreement between Parliament and the Council.

I welcome the fact that Parliament is fully exercising its new rights under the Treaty. As my colleague, Commissioner Damanaki, has said before, the Commission fully shares Parliament’s position that multiannual management plans should be adopted under the ordinary legislative proposal.

I would also like to thank Parliament for supporting the Commission’s empowerment to adjust parameters in the management plan in case science evolves. This will help ensure that the management plan is adaptive and reflects at all times the best scientific information available.

I would like to refer to some specific amendments. First, regarding the definition of the stock and the area covered by the plan, the rapporteur’s proposed amendment is acceptable. Second, regarding the duration of the empowerment for the Commission, the proposal of a three-year renewable empowerment period is acceptable. However, the management plan foresees a four-year cycle for its review and evaluation. Therefore, it might be useful if the two cycles coincided.

Finally, I would like to react to the proposed amendment whereby the Commission, before adopting delegated acts, would have the obligation to consult the Scientific, Technical, and Economic Committee on Fisheries and the North-Western Waters Regional Advisory Council.

Under the Common Understanding on delegated acts, agreed by Parliament, Council and Commission in May last year, the Commission must ‘carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level’ before adopting delegated acts. The proposed amendment would go beyond this obligation and would limit the Commission’s discretion to seek the best advice in each case. Therefore, we are unfortunately not in a position to support this amendment.

I would again like to thank the rapporteur and the Committee on Fisheries for their work and look forward to the discussion on this subject.

  Werner Kuhn, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (DE) Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Stevenson, because his report also dealt with the central situation of fisheries policy in Europe, illustrating this with the example of herring stocks west of Scotland.

At present, we are discussing how we want to work more effectively within the common fisheries policy from 2014 to 2020. It has certainly become clear yet again that these Atlantic stocks can be effectively managed with appropriate catch quotas, enabling the highest possible sustainability yields to be achieved. We are doing all that we can to ensure that our fisheries stocks continue to provide the basis for the social and economic survival of our fishing industry.

At present, we are discussing discards. Should we not make more efficient use of the resources the sea provides? We are considering the issue of transferrable fisheries rights. What happens with small enterprises when the question finally arises of whether to give up the business and retire, or whether to pass it to a successor? Of course, we also have a situation where we want to develop regional fisheries, bringing them on with appropriate management plans, so that not everything is centrally regulated, but that we also take up a clear position here and say: we in the Regional Advisory Council should not only take advice from the scientists, but should also listen to the experience of local, professional fishing communities. Mr Stevenson has also done some excellent work in teasing this out. Once we have a precise definition of the herring stocks, of course also taking into account migration patterns, then we will have achieved a good result. I offer my very sincere thanks to everyone involved.

  Guido Milana, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would also like to thank Mr Stevenson for his excellent work and the structure he gave to his report, which addresses the two main issues. This is not a simple management plan for herring, but is about guaranteeing fishermen a future to some extent, and a plan of action that ensures the sea is protected for years to come.

But the key point in this report is – and remains – the question of delegated acts. I believe that the Council should accept the line taken by the Treaty of Lisbon and I think that the time has come for Parliament to have the courage to take a very clear and strong position on the matter of delegated acts, with perhaps a more authoritative voice than would come from the debate in the Committee on Fisheries or a discussion on a report concerning herring. We assert the right to deal with these matters under the ordinary legislative procedure. I know perfectly well that this issue concerns not only many other kinds of fishing, which will be in a worse situation following the current reform, but also agriculture and other subjects. The right course is to respect the will of Parliament.

  Pat the Cope Gallagher, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, first of all I want to congratulate Mr Stevenson on the preparation and presentation of his report. I fully support the recommendations contained in the report and, in particular, the need to consult with the Pelagic RAC and the STECF on a regular basis. The advice and input of stakeholders is invaluable and results in greater compliance and support for sustainable fisheries management.

The rapporteur explicitly refers to the ordinary legislative procedure because of the Council’s refusal to respect the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon. As Commissioner Dalli has said, there is an interinstitutional disagreement. Is it a question of the Council not being prepared to cede power? The loser is the fishing sector and sustainable fisheries.

As the rapporteur for a similar report dealing with the long-term management plan for Atlantic and horse mackerel, I too have experienced exactly the same problem. This is, of course, a crisis and must be resolved sooner rather than later. It does not appear that it is going to be resolved in the mandate of this Presidency but, having met with the Cypriot Minister yesterday, I hope he will take ownership of this and try to resolve it.

In relation to horse mackerel, the Council favours the removal of all references to the harvest control rule which is, of course, so important because mackerel is known as a determinate spawner and the harvest control rule is the one which we should follow. Ironically, while I agree on a TAC and quotas for horse mackerel over the last few years, the Council have adopted this principle but will not accept it.

In relation to the meeting in Luxembourg of 12 June 2012, I have observed how certain Ministers have spurned the outcome of the Council meeting. The manner in which some Ministers completely ignored the role of Parliament as a co-legislator does not bode well for the negotiations which lie ahead on the reform of the common fisheries policy.

Finally, we all support the minimisation of discards as this is in everyone’s interest. The position adopted by the Council in this case is flawed. Avoidance, minimisation and escapement in the first instance are key. Landing dead fish does not contribute to sustainable fisheries management. We must endeavour to avoid the fish in order to allow them to survive, grow and provide fish for the future.

I am disappointed that the Council is not here today, because our problem and our difference is with the Council, not with the Commission. I hope that it gets a very clear message from this morning’s session that it must engage with us and resolve this issue.

  Ian Hudghton, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, this report was unanimously adopted in the Committee on Fisheries, and that is not a frequent occurrence on fisheries issues, which can be highly controversial at times.

Our rapporteur says in the report that his report is about safeguarding Parliament’s rights under the Treaty of Lisbon. The fact is that the Treaty of Lisbon has created a confused and unsatisfactory situation in relation to fisheries management decision-making.

The CFP reform process provides an opportunity for us to re-examine and radically change the whole structure of fisheries management by sweeping away the over-centralised methods which have so badly failed us in the past. Instead of obsessively safeguarding the rights of EU institutions, we ought to be designing a framework of decision-making which will actually work, and which will succeed in its objectives. In my view, that means maximum decentralisation so that Europe’s fishing nations can be empowered, working together in logical sea basins to conserve stocks for their own long-term benefit; and yet the Commission claims that the Treaty of Lisbon prevents them from proposing as much decentralisation as they would like. Parliament’s legal services take a different view. The result is confusion and endless wrangling about EU institutions’ rights.

I hope that this Parliament, as part of the CFP reform process, will put the preservation of fish stocks, and therefore fishing-dependent communities, first, before this obsessively protectionist view on our own input and our own centralised management systems which have miserably failed in the past.

  Lucas Hartong (NI). – (NL) Mr President, the Dutch Party for Freedom (PVV) warned a number of years ago that the Treaty of Lisbon would cause major problems for the Member States. We were ridiculed, but we are seeing again today that we were right. When it comes to the European fisheries policy, the Council had control over quite a few issues, but, thanks to the Treaty of Lisbon, that authority has now also been given away to the Commission. This is a cardinal error, as we will see.

There are herring swimming around in Scotland’s coastal waters, and lots of them. The Commission now needs the authority to determine the maximum fish birth and death rates. If the herring decide to move to another area, the application of the plan must not be jeopardised.

Mr President, this is truly too crazy for words. If this Parliament believes it can regulate the biological characteristics of herring it has completely lost the plot – whether on the basis of the loathsome Treaty of Lisbon or not! This fact will just be observed one more time.

While we are on the subject, the Dutch Party for Freedom (PVV) believes that all EU fisheries policy should simply be brought back into the competence of the Member States. We believe this because the Member States would do a much better job, as we can see again today.

  Alain Cadec (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank Mr Stevenson for his report. This report on the multiannual plan for the stock of herring distributed to the west of Scotland is testament to the important role Parliament has to play with regard to multiannual plans in the codecision procedure. I am pleased with the importance granted to the multiannual plan in this reform which is in progress. It is a common sense approach.

Within the framework of this reform, our number one objective is to preserve resources – some of my fellow Members have already said this. This objective can only be achieved hand in hand with professionals from the fisheries sector. On Tuesday, the Member States voted in favour of banning discards of fish. This sends a very bad signal from the Council. However, as I recall, Parliament codecides this reform with the Council. The zero discard policy, as proposed by the Commission, is unrealistic and dangerous for fishing activity.

What I would suggest to Parliament, personally, is a significant but progressive reduction in the number of discards. Rather than adopting a dogmatic stance, the solution to this problem of discards can only be reached using a pragmatic approach.

Lastly, the Commission’s plan suggests putting in place transferable fishing concessions. This proposal alone represents a very serious threat to our fisheries model. The Commission wants to put resource management back into the hands of the market alone. I think that it is up to Member States to decide on how fishing rights should be managed, as is already the case elsewhere. We will not achieve an effective and fair reform by weakening fishing activity.

  Chris Davies (ALDE). - Mr President, at 4.30 yesterday morning, Ministers in the Agriculture and Fisheries Council finished their deliberations on the common fisheries policy and put great emphasis, for hour after hour, on the need for a fishery-by-fishery approach based upon multiannual plans. Of course, all this was a chimera, a nonsense, a fraud, so long as they continue to block the creation of these multiannual plans.

The Council wants to be able to continue to allow Ministers to set TACs and quotas each year because they have been a brilliant success over the years. We know they have – every year they have met in December and set TACs and quotas above the scientific recommendations, which is the reason we have such a depletion of our fish stocks today. Not surprisingly, some Members of this Parliament would like to tie the hands of Ministers a little and commit them to long-term management plans that make some sense, but we recognise what the Treaty says, and there was a genuine dispute between the powers of Parliament and the powers of the Council which must be resolved, and will only be resolved by us getting round the table and negotiating. Struan Stevenson said that he was looking to the Cypriot Presidency to put this on the agenda, but I look to the Danish Presidency. You have two weeks. I do not ask you to seek a solution, but what I do ask the Presidency to do is to come forward with a procedure for reaching a solution. The sooner the Council and Parliament sit round the table and start negotiating, the sooner we will be able to put multiannual plans at the heart of a sensible fishing policy.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Lucas Hartong (NI), Blue-card question. – (NL) Mr Davies, I have before me an article from a Dutch newspaper which quotes a leading marine biologist, Mr Ad Corten, as saying that the North Sea is chock full of herring. You just said that there is, in fact, depletion of fish stocks, but, as this article shows, that is absolutely not the case. How is that possible? It is because, as a rule, the responsible committees of inquiry are not independent. What do you have to say to that?

  Chris Davies (ALDE), Blue-card answer. – Mr President, according to the Commission, there are now some 20 fish stocks in the whole of the European Union which are at maximum sustainable yield. This is a huge improvement on the situation of previous years where there have been virtually no stocks at maximum sustainable yield. Twenty out of 250 or so is progress: small, but progress nonetheless, and I believe – though others who know the Scottish situation better than myself can comment – that herring are one of the fish stocks which are currently in a better state than hitherto.

  Lambert van Nistelrooij (PPE). – (NL) Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Stevenson, Scottish herring is very popular and is sold and consumed in the Netherlands as ‘Hollandse Nieuwe’, which means literally ‘New Dutch’. Our herring season began on Saturday with flag day. Well, Mr Stevenson, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. What can we say? This year, the quality was outstanding, the herring was juicy and had a fat percentage of 18%.

The total allowable catches have been set at a low level for years now, and we can now see that there is a lot more herring than ever expected before, and in that fact, at the same time, is also what I want to say. The scientific quality of these forecasts needs to, and indeed can, improve, for which reason it is good that Parliament is also demanding a right of control. There needs to be more control, and not only for the Commission.

It is important that we, Parliament, also exercise these rights stemming from the Treaty of Lisbon, as stated in the Stevenson report. Things can be improved, and they must. Mr Stevenson has adopted the right approach and we should just persist with that position. Even if we talk until the cows come home, Parliament has these rights and so we just have to persist with that position.

IN THE CHAIR: JACEK PROTASIEWICZ
Vice-President

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – (GA) Mr President, I lack the knowledge of fishing possessed by people like Pat the Cope Gallagher and Mr Stevenson. But since there are many fishermen in my area, I like to follow these debates, and I find some of the things I am hearing this morning somewhat disappointing.

Having wonderful experts here in Parliament who take a great interest in fishing, it is somewhat disappointing to hear of their frustration at being blocked by the Council, as indicated by Mr Stevenson and Mr Gallagher amongst others. I do not think this is acceptable. The spirit and the letter of the Treaty of Lisbon must be observed and certainly we, as a parliament, have to stand up for our rights to ensure that there is fair play all round.

We have a huge task at hand regarding fishing and we have to look at the issues mentioned here this morning. Multiannual management plans are essential, as is dealing with discards and so forth. I look forward to the next two presidencies – the Cypriot and the Irish – hopefully doing that.

  Gabriel Mato Adrover (PPE). – (ES) Mr President, we are debating herring, we are debating multiannual plans, but essentially, we are debating jurisdiction, the competencies of Parliament and the need for the Council to accept and most importantly respect what was established in the Treaty of Lisbon, and furthermore, to respect the decision of the legal services themselves.

This is codecision and in this context, a political decision by the Council that not only calls into question the competencies of Parliament, something which we cannot or should not allow of course, but most importantly, puts the future of such essential issues as the reform of the common fisheries policy at risk. I am addressing the absent Council members and also the Commissioner today; I think the issue is much more important than some believe. Give some thought to the matter.

(End of the catch-the-eye procedure)

  John Dalli, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I would like to thank the honourable Members for their contributions to this discussion. The debate shows that this House attaches a lot of importance to institutional questions.

I would like to reassure all Members that the Commission remains very open to supporting any solution that Parliament is able to find with the Council to solve the issue of multiannual plans. The longer this deadlock remains, the more difficult it will be to explain to citizens that we cannot move ahead with these important fisheries management tools to ensure the sustainability of stocks.

  Struan Stevenson, rapporteur. − Mr President, I would like to thank Commissioner Dalli and all my colleagues who participated in the debate.

We have heard repeatedly from colleagues in this debate that the key issue is the blockage by the Council of these multiannual plans. We attach such importance to this issue that a delegation led by the chairman of the Committee on Fisheries, Gabriel Mato Adrover, went yesterday to see President Schulz himself. He was hugely supportive and said that he has made it his absolute priority that EU legislative democracy lies with this House. We are the directly elected representatives of the citizens of Europe.

It is a disgrace that we are having this debate when Parliament and the Commission are in full agreement and there is no one from the Danish Presidency sitting here, or indeed listening to this debate. They are not treating this with sufficient seriousness. President Schulz agreed to raise this matter with the incoming Cypriot Presidency and, if necessary, to raise it with Council President Herman van Rompuy himself. We need to rattle heads together and get this logjam unblocked.

I would like to raise one final point. Commissioner Dalli, you said that you were accepting – and I am grateful to you – most of the amendments in my report, but you were a bit worried that we were going too far in asking the Commission to consult with STECF, ICES and the Pelagic RAC. I think it is absolutely essential – and you have heard this from many of the speakers in this debate – that the stakeholders themselves must be consulted. It is avoiding consultation with the stakeholders that has led to many of the problems in the fisheries sector. I would ask you to look carefully at the result of today’s votes in the House, and I hope the Commission may then think again.

  President. − The debate is closed.

The vote will take place today at noon.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I agree with the Commission’s proposal in that it suggests the use of delegated acts to adapt fishing mortality rates and associated spawning stock biomass levels to scientific findings, and the ordinary legislative procedure in order to make other changes to the Plan. The simplification of the evaluation procedure seems reasonable, as does the Commission’s intention to keep the Plan applicable even if the stock migrates into another area.