Members declared their interest in Agenda items as follows:-

Item 7. Cockle and Mussel Fisheries. Mr. D. Jewitt, Mrs. M. R. Owen, Mr. C. J. Woods.

Item 8. Seed Mussels at Foulney. Mr. D. Jewitt, Mrs. M. R. Owen, Mr. C. J. Woods

Item 12. The Recreational Sea Angling Strategy Consultation from DEFRA. Mr. G. Hancock, Mr. A. J. Marklew, Mrs. M. R. Owen?

Item 15. Gateway Gas Storage Development Proposal: Fleetwood. Mr. M. Porter

Item 17. Proposed Gallows Point Marina. Mr. T. Jones, Mr. R. L. Owen.

1. That following amendments to Minute No. 248(2) to include Mr. N. Parker in the list of apologies and Minute No. 249 to show one of Mr. Woods’ Declaration of Interest as Item 7 instead of Item 8, the minutes of the Joint Committee held on 7^th December 2007 be approved and signed as a correct record.

With respect to Minute No. 268 concerning Wind farms and other developments off Fleetwood, the Chief Executive reported that the regional meeting in the North West which the DTI FLOWW group had agreed should be held to discuss the impact on the fishing industry of wind farms and other developments was not going ahead at present. The group was being pressed to hold a regional meeting of all interests in the Fleetwood area, to include government consenting bodies, developers and the industry.

Dr. Atkins advised Members that the Committee had submitted a response to SEA in respect of round 3 of the wind farm development. A copy of the response was available from the Chief Executive on request.

The Principal Fishery Officer updated Members on progress with Byelaws 20 and 21. Members were advised that the byelaws had been advertised in the relevant newspapers. The deadline for objections was 2^nd April 2008 and to date no objections had been received. Following advertisement the byelaws would be sent to WAG for ministerial approval. It was hoped Byelaw 21 would be in force by the start of the scallop fishing season on 1^st November.

1. That the report be received.

The Principal Fishery Officer reported that cockle activity during the quarter had been at a lower level than that experienced in recent years. The number of vessels in the trawling fleet, especially in the Northern area, was declining as boats were being sold on and not replaced. The offshore wind farms and gas storage developments off Fleetwood had a cumulative effect on inshore fishing activity and it was felt the fleet would need to be re-defined to enable vessels to fish safely within those areas. Scalloping activity was very high in the Cardigan Bay area and Officers had received reports of potting gear being towed away by scalloping vessels working in that area. The Committee had no powers at present to resolve those conflicts and although ‘Aegis’ was currently undergoing a major refit and out of action until early April, as much enforcement effort as possible was being put into this area by Fishery Officers, with assistance from the South Wales SFC patrol vessel ‘Cranogwen’, the Royal Navy Fisheries Protection vessel and MFA overflights.

With respect to multi-agency working, Mr. Boyce reiterated his comments from the last meeting that this was working well. It provided a background infrastructure and assistance in gathering evidence for prosecutions by other agencies.

Mr. Woods raised concerns with regard to South Lakeland District Council’s failure to classify cockle beds in the Ulverston area. The Chief Executive advised Members that the District Council had been alerted to the possible opening of the cockle beds in September 2007. CEFAS had carried out a sanitary survey of the area, required under EU Regulation and this was completed in January 2008. Sampling of the area was now under way and it was hoped that classification would be in place by September 2008. It was suggested that Officers should write again to South Lakeland District Council with Members’ concerns.

Mr. Boyce advised Members that the beds were situated some distance out from the shore and at present South Lakeland EHOs did not have the knowledge or resources to carry out sampling and enforcement there. NWNWSFC Officers continue to assist with sampling and had offered to provide all EHOs with the relevant training to further assist them to carry out shellfish sampling for classification purposes in the future.

1. That the report be received.

The Senior Scientist reported on the status of cockle and mussel fisheries in the District. In Morecambe Bay the results were disappointing, as shown in the table on page 1 of the report. The stock of cockles consisted mainly of one year class of adult cockles, which was the 2006 settlement. The 2007 year class had suffered heavy losses on all beds surveyed and had all but disappeared by the end of 2007. This was a surprising finding, and was of concern regarding the future of the cockle population. The reason for the loss of the 2007 year class was unknown, but was not related to fishing as losses on unfished beds equalled losses on fished areas. If there was no substantial spatfall in 2008 this could result in low levels of stocks for several years. It was likely that the stock of fishable cockles would be poor by September 2008 and therefore unlikely to support a cockle fishery in Morecambe Bay during the winter of 2008/09. A full survey of all the beds would be carried out before the start of the next cockle season.

At Traeth Lafan the cockle population had a much healthier structure. Little fishing activity had taken place during the winter and if the 2006 year class survived there would likely be a significant fishery there next winter. A further survey of the bed would be carried out during the summer.

Mrs. Owen said that following the report at the last meeting of the Joint Committee in December 2007 she had expected the cockle beds in Morecambe Bay to be closed. Local fishermen felt that the Committee had not acted soon enough to prevent the current situation and Mrs. Owen suggested that the Committee should have taken account of comments made by industry at the time as well as the scientific evidence.

Mr. Cook replied that the cockle stock was in extremely poor shape at the moment which was not primarily due to fishing. Had the Committee closed the beds this would have made very little difference to the biological integrity of the stock or sustainability with the commercial viability of the beds. Cockles could breed successfully at low densities and it was not thought that fishing had adversely affected the ability of the stock to reproduce and would not have made a difference to the potential fishery in September 2008. In response to a question as to whether the notable decline in the shellfish on the beds might be related to the mass mortality recently seen in the Burry Inlet, Mr. Cook said that he did not believe that this was the case as only small juveniles had been lost.

Further comment from Members included a suggestion that controlling fishing activity could promote restoration. Prof. Kaiser quoted recent scientific evidence that inshore fisheries were likely to be negatively affected by climatic change and wind erosion and that environmental changes as well as fishing activity put stress on the cockle. It was now thought that cockles may be less well adapted physiologically to warmer winters when food supplies were low.

With respect to the mussel fishery, more interest had been shown in gathering undersized mussels for seed than for sizeable mussels. Authorisations had been issued for the Dyfi estuary again this year and a late settlement of mussels had taken place at Heysham Flat Skear, which had seen a successful hand gathering fishery for seed mussels during the summer over recent years. Interest had been received from the industry in taking these for seed but Officers had not been able to authorise this activity over the winter period as the area was being utilized by winter migrant oystercatchers. There was still a small resource of potential seed mussels on the bed and it was hoped agreement could be reached with Natural England for a fishery to take place once the oystercatchers had returned north.

1. That the report be received.

The Senior Scientist reported on an application to take undersized mussels for sale as seed from a bed near Foulney Island. The precise area requested by the applicant was not clear from the original proposal and a site visit had been made on 12^th March. The supplementary information provided to Members today indicated the areas involved. Figure 2 showed three areas, the potential seed mussel area which was highlighted in blue, an area of undersized mussels likely to grow to size, highlighted in red, and a third area which was currently being fished for size mussels, highlighted in green. There was however a considerable proportion of undersize also present in that area. The potential seed mussel area was ½km to the north of the present fishery. Mr. Cook had talked with local fishermen who had concerns that undersized mussels were being taken from the area currently being fished, the meat yield was low and the mussels were just coming up to the spawning period. They would like to see that area closed until the end of summer 2008 to allow the mussels to grow to size. Officers were suggesting that with Members’ agreement the area to the north of Foulney Island should be authorised for the taking of undersized mussel for seed for a limited period, and that the area to the south should be closed to fishing until the end of summer 2008 to allow the mussels to grow to size. Members were reminded that Officers had powers to withdraw authorisations if any fishing was seen to be carried out in the closed area. Members were also informed that the area was environmentally sensitive, being within the Morecambe Bay SAC. Fishermen had been crossing the sensitive area around Foulney Island to gain access to the mussel bed despite requests from the nature conservation agencies not to do so. It was suggested that the conditions of authorisation should include an advisory route for access. Further conditions suggested were that the mussels should be taken off by boat and that daylight only working should apply.

Dr. Atkins suggested that Officers should work with industry to produce a solution that would be practical in the circumstances. Mr. Cook made the further suggestion that Officers should be given delegated powers to act in closing mussel beds, as well as cockle beds, at short notice if required, and this was agreed.

The Chief Executive presented the report on progress with the Marine Bill in England and Wales. At the ASFC meeting in January the Fisheries Minister had given a presentation on progress with the Marine Bill. Defra was working towards a vesting day of 1^st April 2010 for the new SFCs and had proposed the new name for Committees in England of Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities. Defra had also decided that the responsibilities of the new IFCA would be extended into the estuaries to cover all sea fisheries except migratory species.

Dr. Atkins reminded Members of the Supplementary Report introduced in respect of this item. Defra had commissioned a new research study to provide evidence and advice on which the decisions with regard to the new Districts would be based and the ASFC had written to the Chief Executives of all the English local authorities to inform them of the study. A copy of the public briefing consultation was provided at Annex A to the Supplementary Report and Dr. Atkins took Members through this, drawing attention to constraints for a future model and Options in Annex III, which assumed that the Irish Sea would be covered by a single District. Dr. Atkins then took Members through the draft Committee response provided at Annex B to the Supplementary Report. With respect to Wales, the Welsh Assembly Government had not yet decided how the new powers would be implemented.

Mr. Woods raised concerns with regard to the situation in the Dee estuary. No consultation with fishermen on the English side had taken place and they had had no input into negotiations on boundary changes. The same situation existed in the Solway, which divided England and Scotland. Dr. Atkins advised Members that responsibility for the future management of the Dee fisheries had not yet been agreed.

Councillor Riley pointed out that representations had previously been made that all local authorities, irrespective of whether they had a coastline or not, should contribute to the funding of Committees. No account had been made of the Committee’s earlier response and he felt that Government should be reminded that everyone in the UK benefited from the fisheries. He was concerned that this point had not been mentioned in the response and seemed to be largely ignored. Dr. Atkins reminded Members that the Committee had made a separate response to the earlier consultation which went beyond the ASFC agreed response but the points made had not been heeded. Dr. Atkins agreed to include that point again in his response which would be submitted to Defra following today’s meeting.

In presenting the report the Chief Executive advised Members that the deadline for responses for to this consultation was 7^th March 2008. The WAG had agreed to the late submission of a response in order that discussion on this could take place at today’s meeting. A copy of the draft response was provided at Annex A for Members’ comments. The consultation provided the opportunity to stress the importance of making good decisions with regard to inshore fisheries management.

Dr. Lockwood voiced concerns that with the relocation of the Fisheries Policy Department to Aberystwyth in the near future, greater provision had not been made for continuity of staff involved in the drafting of the strategy.

Dr. Kaiser raised the point that both the Committee and industry had benefited from links with scientific and academic institutions in Wales in the past and felt that those links should be continued and supported.

Following further discussion it was

The Principal Fishery Officer presented the report informing Members of a new Defra scheme to administer financial penalties for fisheries offences. The scheme would initially only apply to Common Fisheries Policy offences. There was a short time-scale for implementation of this scheme, which was due to come into force on 1^st April 2008. Committee Officers would in future report offences which would be dealt with by fixed penalty fines rather than being taken through court. For those offences taken by the Committee there would be no claw back of investigative costs so there was the possibility that revenue could be lost. Mr. Boyce informed Members that a fuller report on this item would be provided to the next meeting of the Joint Committee.

The Chief Executive presented the report and draft response to the Defra Recreational Sea Angling Strategy for England. The main aim of the strategy was to enhance the RSA experience. It outlined a number of objectives such as providing more and bigger fish for angling, maintaining and increasing participation in RSA and realising the economical potential of the sport. Dr. Atkins had reported concerns to Defra from fishing associations in the District that the consultation had not been widely circulated to all sections of the industry, and a series of regional meetings had subsequently been held, including one at Blackpool.

Mr. Marklew agreed that circulation on the consultation had not been wide enough and reported that many RSAs knew very little of this. He had suggested to Defra that a second meeting in Merseyside would be useful but had not received a response to that suggestion. With respect to the proposal for a Golden Mile, Mr. Marklew suggested there should be areas off limits to commercial activities. He raised concerns that at an area popular and accessible to anglers, local trawlers fished within 50 yards of the promenade, there were also some headlands accessible to anglers where lobster and crab pots had been sited, preventing fishing activity there.

Mr. Hancock commented on the Chief Executive’s draft response and stated that although there were some points in this he could agree with there were others on which he had concerns. He made comment on various aspects of the response including recreational sea angling licences, bass angling only areas and on the proposal for a Golden Mile. Mr. Hancock felt that the comments in the second paragraph on page 2 relating to an enhanced ‘fishing experience’ did not put the point over clearly and suggested this could be worded differently in the response.

The Chief Executive agreed that Members’ comments would be taken into account in the Committee’s response. If Members had any further comments they should be sent to the Chief Executive in time for the response to be modified and submitted to Defra by the deadline of 31^st March.

The Chief Executive introduced the report providing details of a consultation on the proposed designation of 7 possible offshore Special Areas of Conservation under the EU Habitats Directive. None of the 7 proposed sites were within this Committee’s District but it was likely that more sites, possibly some within this District, could be designated in the future. Any such consultations would be brought before the Joint Committee for discussion at that time.

                2. That the future implications for the Joint Committee be noted.

The Principal Fishery Officer reported on a consultation into the detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation No. 1966/2006 on the electronic recording and reporting of fishing activities. The Council Regulation had no direct implication for the Joint Committee but would change reporting methods for registered fish markets and owner/Master of certain fishing vessels. At present Fishery Officers recorded all data in notebooks and the Fishery Orders Development Officer was currently undertaking a study on equipment available for electronic data logging to see if this would be of value to the Committee.

1. That the report be received.

The Chief Executive presented the report and draft objection to this proposal for Members’ approval. Officers felt that the effects of this proposal, along with the wind farm developments, cables and pipelines projects in the area would impact on the fishery industry, and the cumulative effects of those developments did not appear to have been considered either by the developers or the Government consenting bodies. The deadline for response was 31^st January 2008 and Officers had submitted an objection in time to meet that deadline. If Members wished to modify that response a further letter could be submitted following today’s meeting.

In presenting the report the Chief Executive reminded Members of the Supplementary Report to this item. The proposal to close the Fal and Helford had caused displacement of vessels into this District and it was proposed that the implications of this for the Committee should be included on the Agenda for the Scientific and Byelaws meeting to be held on 25^th April 2008 for further discussion.

The CE provided a verbal report on this item. The court hearing had been held for four days during the week beginning 4^th March, following which the Judge had deferred his decision until the end of April. A full report on this matter would be provided to the next meeting of the Joint Committee.

1. That the report be received.

The Chief Executive reported that there were no health and safety issues to report. Current staffing matters were outlined in the report.

With respect to the Lancaster premises, Officers have been advised that the University was proceeding with the development of the proposed new sports centre and urgent efforts were being made to seek new office premises. Officers were also investigating the possibility of setting up an office in North Wales within the department run by Professor Mike Kaiser at Bangor University.

1. That the report be received.

The Chief Executive reported that the Transport heading was continuing to run outside predicted levels due to the cost of repairs to ‘Aegis’ but overall expenditure was within budget. Members were advised that the Audit Commission had now provided its Certificate and opinion on the Annual Return. No matters had come to their attention which gave cause for concern.

1. That the report be received.

The Chief Executive provided a verbal report on the meeting of the ASFC held on 23^rd January 2008. Most of the items discussed had been covered on today’s Agenda. The main presentation had been given by the Fisheries Minister on the Marine Bill and future of SFCs.

1. That the report be received.

(b) Sefton Beach Consultation Group

(c) Dee Estuary Conservation Group

                There was nothing to report on this group at the present time.

(d) Environment Agency (Wales) FERAC

(e) Traeth Lafan Local Nature Reserve Management Committee

(f) Marine Safety Sub-Committees

There being no further business the Chairman thanked Members for attending and declared the meeting closed at 1300 hours.