ANNEX D

National Assembly for Wales: Subject Index: Access to Information

1. You have indicated for some time that you are concerned about the management of Welsh inshore fisheries. The issue has been the subject of a great deal of negative Ministerial correspondence, over a number of years, and there has been considerable lobbying by AMs, MPs, and the fishing industry for the Assembly to have, in particular, more control over the performance of Sea Fisheries Committees (SFCs).

2. Urgent - we understand that you are to have a video conference, with the Defra Fisheries Minister Ben Bradshaw, on 3 August to discuss the Marine Bill. Mr Bradshaw has faced similar calls for changes to inshore fisheries management in England and he recently announced his intention to address the problem by modernising English SFCs. We expect therefore that he will press you to discuss your plans with particular emphasis on your plans for SFCs in Wales. We are aware that you have requested a pre-meeting, with officials, prior to your discussion with Mr Bradshaw, and you might find it useful to discuss the options for change outlined below, at such a meeting.

3. That you consider three possible options for change, which are detailed at paragraph 19. Given your concerns we believe that Option 3 would best meet your aim of improving inshore fisheries management.

4. The Statement of Information at doc. 1 contains the facts relating to this submission that may be published in accordance with the Assembly’s Code of Practice on Public Access to Information.

5. Management of local inshore fisheries in Wales is undertaken by 2 Sea Fisheries Committees. These were originally established through the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1888, since replaced by the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1966. In the south there is the South Wales Sea Fisheries Committee and in north the North Western and North Wales Sea Fisheries Committee which covers the north Wales coast and part of the English coast as far north as Cumbria.

6. SFCs are committees of local authorities and are empowered to make byelaws for the management and conservation of their districts’ fisheries and marine environment, and they also enforce some UK and EU legislation. Their byelaws can regulate fishing activity such as use of gear, fishing seasons, minimum landings sizes, and the byelaws have to be submitted to Ministers for consideration and as appropriate confirmation before being enacted.

7. The structure and role of SFCs in England and Wales has been considered in a number of reports recently, including the Prime Minister’s Net Benefits report (March 2004), the Defra report on the Review of Marine and Environmental Enforcement (November 2004), and the English Inshore Fisheries Working Group Report (March 2005). All three reports made recommendations for the modernisation of the inshore fisheries management system in England and Wales, and examined a number of options including the possibility of a single marine management agency which could combine the SFC functions with the functions of the recently constituted Defra Marine Fisheries Agency (MFA).

8. The production of these reports coincided with a growing criticism and dissatisfaction with SFCs based on their perceived failure to adequately fulfil their role as competent authorities in enforcing certain EU environmental legislation. This relates in particular to instances where some SFCs have failed to act to prevent damage, from fishing operations, to habitats or species in areas designated under the Habitats Directive. Some SFCs would argue that they are not properly funded to carry out their management role but the real problem is that there is an absence of clearly defined duties for SFCs and this means that it is difficult to hold them accountable for any inaction. The result is that if a SFC fails to carry out its EU obligations, it is the Member State (Fisheries Departments) which are held accountable and which have to defend any European Court action.

9. There are 4 key areas which would need to be considered if we were to propose changes to the current arrangements for managing inshore fisheries. These are:

9. Questions related to the purpose, duties and jurisdiction of inshore management bodies arise whatever the institutional structure.

10. The purpose of inshore fisheries management currently performed by SFCs is not sufficiently defined and SFCs are not under a clear duty to carry out that purpose; their powers are permissive. Officials consider that inshore management bodies should have clearly defined duties related to achieving sustainable development of fisheries and the marine environment generally within their jurisdiction, in respect of fish stocks, the impact of fishing on the marine environment and the economic development of the fishing industry. This would be consistent with and flows from the aim and objectives proposed by the various reviews. Clearly defined duties and responsibilities for inshore managers would make them more accountable.

11. Responsibilities also need to be better defined in areas where inshore fisheries management functions overlap with functions of other bodies. One such area is health and safety, where officials would advise against seeking specific new powers for inshore fisheries management bodies, but rather look to provide broad discretion to impose conditions on permits or licensing schemes, to comply with relevant health & safety legislation.

12. On jurisdiction, SFCs currently have management responsibilities out to 6nm adjacent to the Welsh coast. The committees are of the view that the seaward limit under a new inshore management system should be extended to 12nm. This would correspond conveniently with the Assembly’s responsibility for the sea out to 12 miles but, if we were to retain SFCs, we would probably advise the Minister against a 12-mile jurisdiction as this would bring inshore managers into contact with foreign vessels and they would need to enforce the full range of CFP requirements. However, we believe the landward limit - currently the high water mark in many cases - should be extended inland so that inshore managers can pursue infringements away from the coast (for example, where undersize cockles are transported inland).

13. Net Benefits and the Bradley Review considered the need for institutional change. At the most ambitious, abolishing SFCs and transferring existing responsibilities for inshore fisheries management to a national body such as the Environment Agency (the Agency responded positively to that Bradley Report recommendation) to Defra’s MFA (on an agency basis) or to an Marine Management Organisation; all these options were equally applicable in England and Wales. Any option that involved keeping SFCs in some shape or form would be more straightforward but would not fully meet your concerns and would still require primary legislation (for example, to impose duties, strengthen powers or to reduce the number of SFCs).

14. The powers needed by inshore fisheries managers to make and enforce regulations will need to be updated under all institutional options. However, analysis of what this role involves in relation to existing legislation suggests that the changes in powers needed are not that great. There are a few gaps in existing legislation in relation to issues like charging, data requirements, effort limitation and research, but what is needed is in large part clarification of existing legislation and making explicit what is currently implicit.

15. A key weakness at the moment is the time taken to introduce any new measures. You are well aware of the difficulties currently being experienced in the Three Rivers Cockle Fishery. We believe any new structure should be able to fast track urgent measures in particular circumstances (e.g. to regulate a new type of destructive fishing gear) without having to go through the full procedure for adopting new regulations which can take 6 months or more (subject to certain safeguards). This would be a type of "stop" notice, which would not absolve the SFC of the need to consult fully on a byelaw, but would enable it to act speedily in the meantime. This would remove a current barrier to SFC’s acting effectively to address, for example, threats from fishing activity to sites such as Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) within their jurisdiction. Their current inability to act quickly works as a disincentive to (or excuse for) them acting at all in some cases. The combination of a clearer statutory purpose and duties with the means to act quickly where necessary would make SFC’s more accountable by increasing the likelihood of any failure to act to protect sites like SAC’s being challenged in the courts.

17. A decision is needed on whether provision is required for supervision of inshore managers. Scope for supervision by the Assembly Government could improve the consistency and effectiveness of inshore management arrangements and help address some of the current criticisms of SFC’s.

18. One solution would be for Ministers to take powers to intervene, for example to instruct an inshore fisheries manager to make a byelaw. A less interventionist solution would involve giving inshore fisheries managers more responsibilities and increasing their accountability, for example by setting clear duties and by requiring them to undertake Regulatory Impact Assessments (RIAs) and full consultation in respect of proposed byelaws.

19. There are essentially three options for institutional change. :

19. It is `impossible, at this stage, to present any meaningful costings for any of the three options. The two Welsh SFCs are currently funded, by member local authorities, via the Revenue Support Grant (RSG). The amounts allocated to SFCs in the local authority settlements are not ring fenced but are separately identified within the settlement. In due course, funding mechanisms would need to be fully discussed with the local authorities. It is not envisaged that any new arrangements will come into effect before 01/04/08. The Distribution Sub Group of the Consultative Forum on Finance (a working group of the Partnership Council) is the mechanism for considering any transfer out of the settlement. The Group contains representatives of the local authorities and Local Government Finance Officials within the Assembly Government.

20. The funding options are discussed in more detail below. Officials believe that option 3 might be cost neutral, in the longer term, on the basis that local authorities could be asked to release their allocated RSG element for SFCs as the activity would be undertaken by WAG. In the short term there could be fairly significant set up costs.

21. Clearly you will require a fully costed submission prior to making a final decision. Once you have given an initial steer officials will explore the funding implications accordingly.

23. The current cost of the 2 SFCs is around £935K a year (source: budgeted levies for 2006-07). The WLGA has indicated in the past that that modernising SFCs would represent a new burden on local authorities that would need to be funded by WAG, possibly through a specific ring-fenced grant rather than through general grant. I have not attempted at this stage to set out the likely cost of the new burden though it is not thought to be substantial and would be offset to a degree by further developing arrangements with SFCs such as through better co-operation and co-ordination with the MFA. This is an area where considerable strides have been taken since the publication of the Bradley report. We are also exploring whether modernised SFCs should be granted powers to recover the cost of some of their services. It is certain however, that additional WAG funding would be required to modernise the SFCs and there would be a long term commitment for funds to be provided for a WAG unit to supervise the SFCs.

24. We believe that it should be possible to negotiate a resource transfer from the RSG settlement to any organisation replacing SFCs. It is assumed that TUPE would apply and SFC employees would transfer to any central government organisation or their redundancy costs would need to be borne. It has not been possible at this stage to quantify what the costs might be to the Department of transferring the SFCs current role to the MFA or to an MMO and meet the expectations that the change would create for a more active approach. Some of these costs could be offset if the SFC capital assets were transferred to the MFA, as they might enable us to reduce our demand on the Royal Navy Fisheries Protection Squadron.

25. In summary, additional recurring costs to WAG would arise under each option as a consequence of more effective management arrangements. These can be offset in part through better utilisation of capital assets and improved working arrangements. Options 2 and 3 present the greatest scope for savings but would involve one-off set up costs which could be fairly significant.

26. Inshore fisheries management in Wales is undertaken by 2 Sea Fisheries Committees established under the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1966. This Act, which has been devolved, would allow some changes to be made to certain SFC functions, but in general, and depending on which option the Minister might favour, we would probably require some amendments or additions to the 1966 Act which could be secured via the Marine Bill.

27. The HOD responsible for this area of work is satisfied with the financial implications and compliance paragraphs of this submission.

28. High – there should be a great deal of interest from the fishing media.

29. This paper sets out some of the options for improved management of Welsh inshore fisheries. As I explained above Defra has been faced with similar problems and has chosen the option of reforming SFCs by defining the purpose of SFCs, placing them under a duty to carry out their functions, modernising their powers and introducing a supervisory role for the MFA or an MMO.

30. That decision will have implications for Wales, not least because the NWNWSFC is a cross-border committee, and therefore we will have to do something to address that situation. Each of the options has resource implications but we would suggest that only option 3 would meet fully your aim of addressing the continuing lobbying by Welsh interests for the Assembly to take direct control of Welsh inshore waters. Option 3 is also the only option which would ensure that Wales fully meets its obligations, directly, for the protection of fisheries and the marine environment.

31. BU Clearance EPC BU have seen this submission and would like to advise that before any commitment is made a thorough investigation is conducted into the additional financial implications of the chosen option. Any additional resources required for programme or drc cannot be met from existing baselines. A bid will need to be made in subsequent Budget Planning Rounds. BU clearance number 06/048.

32. LGF Revenue have considered and cleared this submission. LGF Ref/0066/06

Glyn Perryman

STATEMENT OF INFORMATION

DECISION REPORT

Top