PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) Link to this
Last week the National Party, through me, made a commitment to supporting this legislation going to the Primary Production Committee. At that time I mentioned to members of this House that National was concerned that we secure in the legislation, through this amendment, practices within the Ministry of Fisheries that have always been done when assessing fish stocks.
The reason why we saw that as being important was that recently there was a court case regarding the orange roughy fishery. Challengers to the Ministry of Fisheries won a court case against it. There was some argument as to whether the competence, or the lack of competence, of ministry staff had lost the court case, or whether a matter of law had meant that the Ministry of Fisheries lost the court case. Regardless of what the cause was, the National Party is convinced—along with the fishing industry, a large number of fishing interests, Crown Law, the Labour-Progressive Government Minister Jim Anderton, and the Ministry of Fisheries—that we need to clarify the law by providing a clearer distinction to the Minister of what information is required to make healthy fish stock decisions. So we will be supporting this legislation going to the select committee.
There should be no confusion in this House, and there should be no confusion amongst the public and, certainly, amongst concerned fishers, that this amendment bill in any way relates to the fisheries legislation affecting section 10 of the Fisheries Act 1996. The legislation we have before us today, which National supports, affects section 13 only, which is to do with the information required when making fisheries management decisions. This has no bearing whatsoever on section 10 of the Fisheries Act 1996, which was the subject of another piece of legislation brought into the House by the fisheries Minister some time ago. That legislation did not secure the support of National, the fishing industry, or even, in the end, the Ministry of Fisheries. The drafters acknowledged that they had been in error in terms of drafting that section 10 legislation.
To clarify, the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2) is concerned with section 13 of the Fisheries Act. It is not concerned at all with section 10, and it does not address any issues relating to that section. Section 10 is about when the Minister takes a precautionary approach when he or she does not have information on fish stocks. Therefore, the Minister may cut catch levels based on that precautionary approach.
This bill relates to section 13, which is about the information required to make fisheries management decisions. We know that the Minister in charge of the bill, Jim Anderton, kept fishing interests closely informed, and I believe that the Ministry of Fisheries worked very closely with fishing interests in putting together this legislation on section 13. We applaud that and we certainly thank the Ministry of Fisheries for keeping National Party members informed of its progress. We did not want to see any argument when it came to the drafting of this legislation; that would signal to us, quite clearly, that there had been a change in the intent of the original legislation, which, of course, we would not support. We were always behind securing the original intent, not changing the intent.
National members will be interested, at the select committee, to hear what invited submitters say about the bill as drafted. Should they raise any significant concerns—should there be any angst about the legislation as drafted—National MPs will be very concerned indeed, because we understood that it was a team approach from the Ministry of Fisheries and fishing interests that brought this bill to the House in this form. There is no doubt in our mind that the current Act is not explicitly clear. We agreed to clarification, not to change.
National will support the legislation going to the select committee and, furthermore, we will support the inviting of submitters to partake in an efficient select committee process, given that the Minister of Fisheries has to make decisions on hundreds of fish stocks by 1 October. National would be the last party to undermine the quota management system by stalling this legislation, which would mean that the Minister could not make those decisions by 1 October. I am hoping that Hone Harawira will also see the wisdom of doing that and, indeed, will follow National Party members in supporting this legislation.
I commend this legislation to the House. I acknowledge the work that was done by the ministry officials, but more particularly the work that was done by outside fishing interests, who spend more time on the sea and have more knowledge of how fish stocks are working on a day-to-day basis. We certainly value their input. We will support this bill going to the select committee. Thank you.
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) Link to this
I thought we might have had someone from the Government side or the parties supporting the Government take a call in between—
Hon Annette KingI know. I thought there might have been another one. I thought this was significant legislation. Whenever we patch legislation or deal with legislation that relates to property rights—and that is essentially what this does—my expectation is that there would be a full and complete debate about it and a scoping of the issues of concern. I would have thought so. However, I am happy to take the call.
We are debating the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2). My colleague Phil Heatley outlined a number of the significant issues that pertain to this legislation. New Zealand has a very proud record in its fisheries management. I had a small part in the 1996 Fisheries Act as chair of the select committee for some 20 months amongst a very polarised sector—fisheries has some quite diverse interests who are very interested in the activities of fishing. There are those people who are involved in commercial fishing, those people involved in commercial fishing who are leasing, there are recreational fishers, there are people involved in customary take, and there are a whole lot of environmental groups out there. Each one of those interests has a perspective, so it is very much like oil and water in about five sections—it is a stratified mix of groups who are very polarised, and it is very difficult to come to a decision.
My point is simply that amongst all of that amalgam of ideas about where we should go, the 1996 Fisheries Act was regarded as a world leader. It set out purposes and principles that were all about sustainability. It gave property rights, and it shifted the resource into a property right for the individuals to have ownership. The concept of that ownership was that when the fishers owned the resource, they would value it, look after it, and treat it sustainably, along with what was enshrined in law.
That worked all very well for a long time, but suddenly when the ownership was there, the price of some of those fish stocks, along with what they were currently worth on the world market, created a kind of industry of jurisprudence around trying to find holes to extend the right to fish and, in some cases, the right to mine fish. It also created an increasing opportunity for property rights. The law had to be robust—that is the point.
Sitting alongside that, we have an issue at the moment where it is probably fair to say that the fisheries sector is under as much stress as almost any financial sector in New Zealand, for the reason that it is heavily dependent on two factors that are under pressure. It is a high fuel-user; one cannot shift boats, and harvest fish, without consumption of quite a bit of fossil fuel. Also, it is largely export dependent, and at this particular time there are many people who have said that our dollar is overvalued. So fisheries have had substantially increased costs and they have had the value of their returns reduced by a dollar that is a bit overinflated.
Let us look at how New Zealand fisheries are actually managed. Looking at the bill for the first time is a little bit like looking at alphabet soup. There is a whole range of very complex letters—for example, “MSY”, “TAC”—that are very meaningful to the fishing industry. But there are a whole lot of decisions—in fact, 629—that have to be made by species and by quota area. By taking all of the different species, and all of the different quota management areas in order to get some precision about the management of fish stocks, that is where the legislation has ended up. There may not be hoki just for New Zealand, it is divided into five different areas, and so on for all of the different species in New Zealand.
We have a situation now where section 13 of the principal Act was challenged—and my colleague Phil Heatley outlined what happened in relation to that. If the Minister is going to make decisions that are robust, particularly when a reduction has to be made, then those decisions are likely to be challenged, simply because of the pressures I have outlined. So we need to give some clarity about what section 13 means. If we left it as it is, there are two things that could happen. The Minister could demand more information of the industry and that it be provided in a more reliable or robust form than the Minister currently has, in order for him or her to make a decision. Or the Minister could make no decision. As far as the industry is concerned, that would be deemed to be reasonably untenable.
It is probably fair to say—and I did say it—that this is a very, very polarised industry but, for the first time in a long, long time we had the representatives of the sea harvesters, the Seafood Industry Council, come to us with the Ministry of Fisheries and say: “We recognise we have a problem and we need to work together to make a patch.” That is what this bill is; it does not do anything other than give clarity around section 13 of the Act so that the Minister can make some decisions on the best information available.
The nub of the matter is contained in clause 4 of the bill, which talks about the Minister being able to consider the current level of stock producing a maximum sustainable yield, and that the Minister must use the best information available—I think that is the old legislation. I have lost my notes on the bill that I had, sorry.
So it is important that we give the Minister the opportunity to make these decisions, and give the Minister some kind of robustness about this. On the best information available, he is to make a decision. So what sorts of things are actually available to him? Assessing the maximum sustainable yield, or the biomass of the maximum sustainable yield, is not simple, because one cannot actually go and count the fish. But there are some tools out there that actually enable that to happen. One can get a sense—and that is all it is—of what is out there, and the more information one has, the more accurate that sense is. There are things like catch history and catch effort—we have the fishermen actually record how much effort has gone into the catching of their fish. There are also fish caught as a by-catch, when someone is targeting another species. All that kind of information comes into it.
This bill allows the Minister to make those decisions based on the best information available. I think that that is a very sensible approach; it is one that the industry and the ministry have come to an agreement on because they realise that fishing is a very important industry for New Zealand and that it has to be sustainable. If it is not seen as sustainable in the world’s eyes, then the consumer will turn off buying New Zealand fish. We have had various people at times putting out things like the Best Fish Guide. If only their information were as accurate as the ministry’s, I am sure we would have had an entirely different list.
So from all of the information that is there, one takes the maximum sustainable yield, and from that, one calculates what portion is mortality, what is poaching, what is recreation, and what is customary. That gives a total allowable commercial catch. The Minister needs to be able to make these decisions—as Phil Heatley said, 1 October is when the fishing year starts. We would have loved to have more time in the select committee to deal with this matter on a wider basis, but we have targeted those groups that are interested—or we will be targeting them—and invited them for submissions. They have had a bit of a heads-up, they have been thinking about this, and the Seafood Industry Council, I would imagine, has been canvassing its members as to their views on this. So we are certainly supporting this to go to select committee. If something really unusual pops up we will have to consider our position, but at this point we support this bill going to select committee.
METIRIA TUREI (Green) Link to this
The Green Party will also support this bill’s referral to the Primary Production Committee. We consider it a necessary fix to many of the flaws in the Fisheries Act 1996. The High Court decided recently that under the current law the Minister must have estimates of current biomass and maximum sustainable yield before he can set a total allowable catch limit. Given that for many—if not most—fish stocks we have very limited actual biomass data, let alone good enough data to accurately estimate what the sustainable yields are, it is unacceptable for the Minister not to be able to set or change the total allowable catches for these fish stocks. A number of alternative methods for guesstimating maximum sustainable yields are required for fish stocks without good biomass data, but as a result of the High Court decision, these alternatives are not available to the Minister.
I have done a lot of work and research on fisheries in my role as the Green Party’s spokesperson on fisheries. I have had discussions with researchers such as those from the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd, which says that for about 80 percent of the demersal landings of fish stocks the information that can tell us whether those fish stocks are being fished below, at, or above their sustainable yield is simply not available. There is excellent research from overseas, for example, research carried out by Japan on squid—a very important fishery in New Zealand—and on the climate change impacts on that fishery, which should cause very serious concern for New Zealand. But the fact is that the legislation does not allow the Minister to make sensible decisions to ensure the sustainability of those fish stocks. As such, we are seeing our fish stocks crashing around us.
The Green Party believes that fisheries management in New Zealand is fundamentally unsustainable while it is structured as it is, with fish stocks being continually depleted and requiring deep quota cuts. I congratulate the Minister on the cuts that he has made in the past. The classic example that is often given is that of orange roughy, which has been fished almost to death by bottom trawling. Under the quota management system, for example, the Chatham Rise orange roughy fishery was fished out to just 3 percent of it original biomass even though the maximum sustainable yield was 30 percent. The quota management system could not ensure that that fishery was able to maintain itself at a sustainable biomass. The quota management system is failing our fish stocks; failing our industry, which relies on those fish stocks; and failing the people of this country, who rely on that fishery for sustenance and income.
The hoki fishery, despite its recent recertification by the Marine Stewardship Council, is heading in the same direction as the orange roughy fishery, as are many of our other fish stocks. The Minister may describe the quota management system as a world leader—and I have heard others in this House and elsewhere say that it is—but the sad fact is that it is not. It fails us. If it could be, the Fisheries Act should be based on the precautionary principle that if the sustainability of fish stocks in the wider marine ecosystem were paramount, if customary and recreational interests came before commercial interests, and if the Minister mandated best practice fishing and by-catch avoidance methods, then perhaps we could say that the quota management system works and is a world leader.
The fish in New Zealand waters are a natural resource that belongs to all New Zealanders, yet since 1992 the commercial fishing industry has been able to catch them for free, provided that they own the right to do so. The public of New Zealand get no right in return for the use of this resource. If the commercial fishing industry, for example, were required to pay resource rentals for the fish that it profits from, then, again, our fisheries management would be better and fairer for the people of the country, and perhaps would lead to a more sustainable process than what we currently have. When total allowable catches are based on treating the biomass maximum sustainable yield as targets to be reached, fishers regularly overfish the stocks. The biomass maximum sustainable yield should be treated as an absolute maximum in setting the total allowable catches, and not as a target. The concern here, of course, is about the extraction of the fish from New Zealand’s oceans, the unsustainability of the fisheries industry, and its failure to address the problem of extraction and the problem of the reduction in fish stocks that are available to it.
Earlier I mentioned the Japanese research on squid. While we are dealing with concerns around extraction, other impacts are happening in our oceans that are also reducing our fish stocks and putting our fisheries under threat. One of those concerns is climate change and its impacts on the ocean in terms of ocean acidification, where the ocean is absorbing more and more carbon from the atmosphere, causing a chain reaction that leads to less and less calcium carbonate being available in the ocean for various species to use.
Some of that Japanese research has shown that squid lose their metabolic function in highly acidic ocean environments. New Zealand has a significant investment in the squid fishery—so significant in fact that we regularly see the absolutely protected Hooker’s sea lion caught as by-catch with very little consequence, because the squid fishery is so important. That squid fishery is at risk of the impacts of climate change, yet there is no interest from this Government or the industry itself—especially the big players in the industry—in trying to make sure the industry deals with the extractive damage it causes to the fishery stock, the environmental damage that it does to the ocean floor, in particular through bottom trawling, or in managing the inevitable change and shift in species dominance that will occur as a result of the environmental effects of climate change that are happening before our very eyes.
The National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd is suggesting that in 30 years we could have a serious impact on the kina population as a result of ocean acidification. This is extremely serious, yet there is no interest in trying to protect that fishery for those people who rely on it for an income, or for the communities that rely on it for sustenance. At heart, this issue is about food security. It is about making sure our people—Māori, who have been able to do so for 1,000 years; and Pākehā, who have been doing so for 200 years—can go down to the ocean and be able to feed themselves and their families from the bounty available to us. Money does not grow on trees, but food does. Food grows on the trees, it swims in our creeks, and it lives in our oceans, and it should be available to all our communities so they can provide for themselves and their families. When extractive industries like the fishing industry fail to provide research and support and fail to take action to make sure that fisheries remain sustainable, what we have is a theft of food from the mouths of our children. That is what is happening when we fail to include proper precautionary principles in something like the fisheries legislation.
The Green Party supports the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2) with some reluctance. The bill is a watered down version of an original bill that failed to get through the House because a number of parties and members of this House refused to accept and allow for the inclusion in our fisheries legislation of a precautionary principle such that sustainability of our fisheries resource for our whānau would be the predominant concern. Those members should be ashamed of that failure to support that original legislation, because they are part of the process of theft from the mouths of our children.
What we need in this country, and what we need particularly for our fisheries, is good, strong legislation that puts the sustainability of the fish stock right at the heart of the fisheries legislation. We need legislation that makes sure our industries are secure and able to deal with the changes in fish stocks that are inevitably occurring but that also prioritises, above the commercial catch, the rights of our communities through recreational fishing, and particularly—particularly—through customary fishing, whereby we are able to feed our families and ourselves from that resource. This bill is clearly an attempt by the Government to get some movement, so we will support it on that basis, but it is a poor attempt, and we look forward to much better support, perhaps some time in the future. Kia ora.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) Link to this
Before I call Pita Paraone, I say to members that I was rather embarrassed during the previous speech as at least three conversations were going on. I could hear the conversations from the Chair. I know that conversations need to occur in the House, but sustained conversations for a long time and in a loud voice are not fair to other members.
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) Link to this
Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to take a call in this debate on the first reading of the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2). The issue of the sustainability and protection of fish stocks is very important to New Zealand. Why? It is because New Zealand’s fish stocks are one of the world’s most envied food sources, and the quota-based fisheries management system is touted as a leader in sustainable resource management. With food prices on the rise, the oceans are increasingly being considered as the great provider. With technology allowing for improved or greater catches, global stocks are dwindling and many grounds are in serious danger. In New Zealand although a quota management system has helped to prevent overfishing, it does not detract from the need for New Zealand and this Parliament to ensure that that particular resource is sustained.
Although this is a small bill, it is a very important one. As earlier speakers have rightly said, it amends section 13 of the Fisheries Act and gives it clarity. I am not a member of the Primary Production Committee, which the Minister has asked that this matter be referred to, but I note that the lead speaker from National referred to briefings that were made available to him and his party by the Minister. I hope that at some time during the process the Minister might extend that same courtesy—and I am not speaking on behalf of other parties—to New Zealand First. Having said that, I am advised by our member on the select committee that the Minister may have offered us the opportunity for a briefing, and, giving him the benefit of the doubt, I just ask whether the Minister and his office might consider a briefing for New Zealand First.
This legislation becomes a very important issue for New Zealand and its fishing industry. Legislation and regulation are major tools to ensure sustainability and protection, and the quota management system is part of that. From time to time legislation and regulations have to be amended to ensure the intent of those rules meets present-day demands. Although the Minister quite rightly points out that this bill is a result of court action, that fact does not detract from or remove the bill’s intention of ensuring that our current regulations and legislation meet their original intent. The bill does that by amending section 13 of the Fisheries Act 1996, for the purpose of enabling the continuation of established practice in relation to setting a total allowable catch under section 13, even where there is an absence of sufficient information relating to biomass and the biomass that can produce a maximum sustainable yield.
I think therein lies the real issue of the bill, because it allows the Minister to make a decision, albeit in the absence of research. On behalf of New Zealand First, I express some disquiet. I hope that in terms of making decisions that practice does not become the norm for the Minister, and that the bureaucrats within his ministry are not given a licence to do away with the need for proper research. I just express that disquiet at this time, but I should say that New Zealand First will support the bill going to the select committee. We think it is important that the public of New Zealand, not least those involved in the industry, are able to express their point of view, whether it be one of disquiet or of support.
It has been suggested that because the livelihood of fisher people is reliant on the sustainability of the resource, perhaps self-governance on their part ought to be seen as acceptable. However, we know that this sort of approach has not always worked. However, I acknowledge there are exceptions. I refer to the Southland CRA 8 crayfish fishery as a leading example of successful self-management. Those quota holders took it upon themselves to cut the harvest. They have helped the crayfish population rebuild to abundant levels, but several fisher people, unable to ride out the necessary limited fishing period, have had to sell up in the interim. So there are examples of self-management.
I do not need to go on any further to make the point. New Zealand First will support the bill going to the select committee so the public of New Zealand can express their views. Kia ora.
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party) Link to this
Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa. The Chinese philosopher Lao-tzu made a comment that I believe to be of great relevance to the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2). He said: “Govern a great nation as you would cook a small fish. Do not overdo it.” It is a comment well worth digesting in the context of this new amendment to the Fisheries Act 1996, and it is particularly relevant when we think back to the furore that broke out the last time the Government sought to amend the Fisheries Act. At that time, the amendment was to section 10.
The Fisheries Act 1996 allows for a wide range of decisions based on sustainability and utilisation to be made at the Minister’s discretion. Yet 18 months ago the Minister of Fisheries suddenly determined that an amendment to the Act was required to address the possibility of uncertainty and ambiguity. To add heat to the frying pan, it was decided that consultation with those most affected was unnecessary.
It was not long before the sector erupted. Iwi leaders described the decision to amend section 10 as power-grabbing, and expressed their concern that they had been treated with the utmost contempt by the Ministry of Fisheries and the Minister. The New Zealand Seafood Industry Council chief executive, Owen Symanns, represented the view of many when he stated: “Suggestions that the law is ambiguous are rubbish—it is very, very clear.” The point made was heard loud and clear: the Minister and the ministry had overdone it, and there was no confusion there.
And so on 15 March 2007 the Māori Party made our stand just as clear. Hansard records that stand: 115 votes in support and four opposed. We were proud to have those four votes registered, knowing that they represented the views of the fishing sector, and that they held the line, so to speak, that no change was needed because the current Act already required decision makers to act in a precautionary manner. It is a line that, incidentally, successive courts have reinforced in two cases on kahawai and orange roughy, and a line that reminds us all we must act in such a way as to always ensure sustainability and allow only the level of utilisation that will achieve that. And so in November 2007 the Primary Production Committee discharged the bill without making any recommendations. This history provides a vital foundation towards understanding the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2).
The second time round, the Government seeks to amend section 13, and with the prospect of an election literally nothing but weeks away, the process for section 13 is entirely different from that used for section 10. The Minister seeks to make the necessary decisions on a total allowable catch, and to have the authority to solicit additional research in order to be able to provide the specific information that the courts set out. It is a specific and technical response to the amendments that arose out of the High Court judgment of Justice Miller in Antons Trawling Co. Ltd v Minister of Fisheries on orange roughy. Similar to the Government-speak that was promulgated 18 months ago, the Minister suggests that the amendment is necessary to ensure the sustainable management of fisheries resources for all fishers. This time round we are able to say with confidence that restrictions on fishing take need to be applied fairly and equitably across all groups of fishers, with Māori involved in such decision-making.
The Māori Party is pleased and relieved to announce that for the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2) there has been a more robust consultative process with Māori fisheries in its development. Te Ohu Kaimoana and seafood industry representatives, through the Seafood Industry Council, have been involved in discussions with the Ministry of Fisheries, and are satisfied that the proposed amendment restores the status quo. That the Minister has learnt the immense value of consultation with the industry is appreciated, and we commend the positive response that has been taken in this new bill. Whether this complete turn-round has been a consequence of adverse publicity generated by Māori fisheries over this breach of their rights, or whether it has been because of the all-important votes in opposition registered by the Māori Party last year, is unknown.
What we do know, however, is that we have it on very good authority that the seafood industry has struck a bargain that not only will it sign off on the wording of the amendment and the process, but also it will do so if the Māori Party and Labour Māori MPs support this amendment. This is a very significant development in the course of Māori democratic participation. The capacity of the industry to have such a profound influence on the passage of the bill is a great credit to the strength of that collective voice. We note too its recognition that the Māori Party is the only party on the Hansard record to have voted against the original section 10 proposal. We are interested, too, in the industry’s encouragement of Labour Māori members to continue to hold the line.
We in the Māori Party congratulate Te Ohu Kaimoana, the seafood industry, and the Seafood Industry Council on the very impressive part they have played, both in pushing section 10 off the agenda, and in negotiating for amendments that neither add to, nor subtract from, current decision-making obligations. The ultimate proof of the success of their strategy was revealed just 2 weeks ago, when the Minister sought an order of the day to withdraw the section 10 amendment. And so today we acknowledge that whakapapa, we commend the strategic negotiations that have taken place, and we welcome the opportunity to support the section 13 amendment.
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) Link to this
I will be brief with my contribution so this legislation can be voted on before the House rises. I commend the speech just given by the Hon Tariana Turia, who gave a very, very good rendition of the history of recent fisheries legislation and explained some of the issues the industry faces, particularly with the attitude of the current Minister. I say at the outset that the 1996 Fisheries Act has overall been very, very successful legislation, and it is admired by many countries throughout the world with fishing industries.
There was a court decision in February of this year by Justice Miller regarding the way that the total allowable catch is to be established. The decision suggested that before any decision is made on total allowable catch the biomass must be accurately known so that the maximum sustainable yield can be taken into the Minister’s consideration. This is more prescriptive than what was originally intended in the 1996 Act, and therefore this particular legislation, the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2), seeks to clarify the wording of section 13 and, in fact, to clarify it to such an extent that the way it is interpreted is the way that it has been interpreted for the 629 species that have already been moved into the quota management system.
I take this opportunity to congratulate the industry on its pragmatic and cooperative response to this issue. I understand that it has worked very closely with the officials of the ministry to make sure that a bill has now been presented into Parliament and has wide-spread support at this stage from most major industry players. What we now need to do is make sure that we progress this legislation through the select committee as quickly as possible, with an intention to return it to Parliament before it rises for the election, so that there will not be ongoing challenges to the establishment of total allowable catch for the next fishing season, which commences on 1 October 2008. I commend this bill to the House, and I will certainly give it my best at the select committee over the next few weeks.
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Internal Affairs) Link to this
I move, That the Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2) be considered by the Primary Production Committee , that the committee report to the House on or before 25 August 2008, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, and during an evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 192 and 195(1)(b) and (c).