Item 7 – Byelaw 5 – Permit Scheme. Mr. D. Jewitt, Mr. A. Jones, Mrs. M. R. Owen, Mr. C. Woods.

Item 9 – Update on confirmation of Byelaws 14, 24, 25. Mr. D. Jewitt, Mrs. M. R. Owen, Mr. C. Woods

Item 10 – Byelaw 12 – Scallop Authorisations. Mr. A. Jones

Item 11 – Mussel Fishery Licences 2006/07 – Ballast Bank. Mr. A. Jones, Mr. T. Jones, Mr. K. Mould, Mr. C. Woods

Item 12 – Conwy Mussel Reseeding 206/Conwy Mussel Fishery Order Licences 2006/07. Mr. T. Jones, Mr. K. Mould

Item 13 – Dyfi Seed Mussels. Mr. T. Jones, Mr. K. Mould, Mr. C. Woods.

Item 14 – Restrictions on Fishing for Tope. Mr. G. Hancock, Mr. A. Marklew

Item 17 – Wet Dredging for Cockles. Mr. D. Jewitt, Mrs. M. R. Owen, Mr. C. Woods.

Item 21 – Walney and West of Duddon Offshore Wind farms consultations. Mr. D. Jewitt, Mr. A. Jones, Mr. J. D. Murphy, Mrs. M. R. Owen, Mr. M. Porter, Mr. T. Watson.

Item 22 – Update on Proposed Gallows Point Marina. Councillor W. J. Chorlton, Mr. T. Jones, Mr. M. Kaiser, Mr. K. Mould,

Following an amendment to include Councillors I. ap Dewi and E. J. Griffiths in the list of apologies, that the proceedings of the Joint Committee held on 3^rd February 2006 be approved and signed as a correct record by the Chairman.

There were no matters arising.

The Chief Executive introduced the report which had been prepared to provide guidance for Members on rules of debate and Members’ interests. Relevant sections from the Standing Orders and guidance from MAFF on declarations of interest were attached at Annexes A and B to the report. Dr. Atkins said there were now more Members on the Committee with special knowledge and expertise who wished to speak on many of the Agenda items and it was felt that Standing Orders might need to be applied more strictly in order to limit the number and length of contributions.

Concerns were expressed that with the abolition of the Standing Sub-Committees, which had provided a channel for debate for industry representatives, some Members may find it difficult to comment fully on Agenda items within the time restraints.

The Chairman reminded Members that he had discretion to allow further comment in order for contributors with special expertise to be heard and taken account of. Members were assured that the procedure could be reviewed in future if necessary.

With respect to declarations of interest Officers were recommending that the current guidelines provided by MAFF should continue to apply pending further guidance from DEFRA and WAG.

Following a discussion it was

The Chief Executive presented the report of the meeting of the Conwy Mussel Fishery Order Licence Sub-Committee held on 3^rd February 2006. The report set out the decision made at that time about setting up licence arrangements for the future.

That the report be received.

In presenting the report the Principal Fishery Officer reminded Members that the final version of this draft byelaw had been tabled this morning. It had previously been thought that the Committee could not restrict numbers but in recent months Officers had worked closely with DEFRA lawyers on the wording of the byelaw and it was now believed that this could be done. The new permit scheme would replace the temporary scheme which had been introduced under Byelaw 13A in February 2005. It was hoped this would provide the means to manage the fishery more effectively.

Byelaw 5 had been written in a similar way to a Statutory Instrument in that it included a short introduction, one or two major conditions and a schedule which could be amended in future without the need to alter the byelaw itself. The final version of the byelaw only differed from that issued with the Notice of Meeting and Agenda by the addition of Numbers 10 and 11 to the Schedule relating to permits during the first year of issue.

Members were advised that it was unlikely that Ministerial confirmation of the new byelaw would be received in time for it to be implemented at the end of the closed season for cockles. Officers were now suggesting that it should start with effect from 1^st February 2007, following expiry of the current permit scheme on 31^st January 2007.

Mrs. Owen raised concerns on the documentary evidence required which was listed in paragraphs 1 to 4 of The Schedule and pointed out that she would be unable to provide all those documents. The Chief Executive suggested that applicants could be asked to provide evidence of address rather than specifying actual documents. It was unclear at present whether the Committee could request National Insurance numbers and this point was currently being clarified.

Dr. Hodgson raised concerns on the restriction of numbers in a public fishery and felt this might jeopardise the process. Mr. Boyce pointed out that the number suggested of 200 was a target figure and permits would initially be issued to those with a current track record. That number would likely reduce in the future due to natural wastage but it might take a number of years to achieve the figure of 200.

The Chairman brought the discussion to a close by reminding Members of the recommendations and it was

In presenting the report the Principal Fishery Officer reminded Members that the final version of this draft byelaw had been tabled at today’s meeting. The byelaw aimed to restrict the marked increase in the number of pots set by non-commercial fishermen. Following the making of this byelaw at the November 2005 meeting of the Joint Committee a potential loophole was found which the draft byelaw issued with the Notice and Agenda sought to close. It was subsequently felt that this may well discriminate against people who were not using pots and traps and it was felt that the final version tabled this morning addressed that concern.

Mr. Boyce suggested that the current byelaw should not be revoked at this time but left in place until the new byelaw had been ‘made’ and received Ministerial confirmation. This would ensure that Byelaw 30 would remain in force if DEFRA subsequently felt the draft byelaw presented this morning was not acceptable and would need to be brought back to Committee for amendment.

                2. The byelaw now ‘made’ is

3. That the current Byelaw 30 be not revoked at this time.

Mr. Boyce updated Members on confirmation of Byelaws 14, 24 and 25. Byelaw 14 was the seasonal closure of cockle fisheries from 1^st May to 31^st August annually to enable cockles to spawn. DEFRA had not confirmed that byelaw by the 1^st May and Officers had taken the decision to close all cockle beds within the District under Byelaw 13A. Officers were seeking retrospective approval of that action.

With respect to Byelaws 24 and 25 Members were advised that these were still awaiting ministerial confirmation. It was hoped to receive confirmation of Byelaw 25 shortly but because one objection to Byelaw 24 had been received there would probably be a delay in confirmation of that byelaw.

It was suggested, and agreed that Officers be directed to write to the Welsh Assembly Government requesting early confirmation of Byelaws 24 and 25.

                3. That the report be received.

The Principal Fishery Officer introduced the report which updated Members with the number of Byelaw 12 authorisations issued for the 2005/2006 season. At a meeting of the Chairman’s Working Party Sub-Committee held on 27^th February 2006 it had been agreed that the conditions of Byelaw 9 should be strictly adhered to. To date 7 authorisations had been issued, only one being issued under a Byelaw 9 sunset authorisation.

Following a discussion it was

That the report be received.

The Senior Scientific Officer presented the report informing Members of proposals for the licensing of mussel fishing at Ballast Bank during 2006/07. Licences run from 1^st September to 30^th April and there were currently five licence holders with a further six on the waiting list. The procedure in the past has been to carry out surveys in July and to then recommend the number of licences to be issued according to stock levels. Committee policy was not to renew licences for those people who had not paid or submitted satisfactory returns.

Officers were recommending that a maximum of 5 licences be issued for the 2006/07 season provided that stock levels were similar to 2005/06. If the surveys found significant changes to stock levels then it was suggested that the number of licences should be determined by the Committee either through correspondence or a special meeting of the Joint Committee.

Following a discussion it was

The Senior Scientific Officer presented the report informing Members of prospects for mussel relaying in the Conwy Estuary during 2006 and to recommend a procedure for issuing licences for the Conwy fishery for the 2006/07 season.

Members were advised that spatfall had been increasingly poor over the last few years and the situation continued to deteriorate. An area of seed mussels was found on the south west edge of the Morfa bed, but no more than 50 tonnes was present in this area, most of that stock not being harvestable. A meeting of the Conwy Mussel Development Group in March agreed that the area should be revisited at a later date and if the mussels were then found to be harvestable they should be relayed during the summer of 2006.

With respect to the issue of licences for the Conwy mussel fishery for 2006/07 season, Members were advised that although fishing prospects were not as good as last year, it was felt that the fishery could sustain the issue of 22 licences. Officers had spoken with Mr. Trevor Jones, Chairman of the Conwy Mussel Company, who was in agreement with this proposal.

Mr. Cook presented the report updating Members on the harvesting of seed mussels from the Dyfi Estuary. CCW had previously agreed to the removal of mussels from a formerly productive cockle bed on an experimental basis. At the last meeting of the Joint Committee on 3^rd February Members agreed that authorisations should be issued to industry to fish one-half of the bed and the activity monitored to see if it encouraged the recruitment of the cockle bed. 11 authorisations were subsequently issued, which expired at the end of April 2006. Little fishing activity had taken place at that time with only one tonne of mussels being taken by a local operator. There was still interest in harvesting the mussels and it was proposed that further authorisations should be issued in September, following agreement with CCW.

That the report be received.

The Principal Fishery Officer presented the report advising Members that Officers had received a number of requests from the angling sector for the Joint Committee to consider a prohibition on commercial fishing for tope. North Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee had recently made a new byelaw which restricted the landing of tope for commercial purposes and the angling fraternity had requested this Committee to make a similar byelaw.

Members were advised that the Committee had no resources to investigate this further at present. It was recommended that Officers should carry out consultation with industry over the next few months with a view to bringing a draft byelaw to the December 2006 meeting of the Joint Committee for consideration.

Dr. Kaiser felt that there was scientific support for the initiative and asked whether anglers advocated catch and release. Mr. Marklew informed Members that North West Anglers Association members did not land tope and considered it a vital sport fish. It was also one of the main targets of dinghy anglers. There was a good stock of tope in Liverpool Bay, particularly of young fish.

Mr. Gorman suggested that any byelaw for the protection should ban the landing of that species by both anglers and the commercial sector.

Dr. Lockwood raised concerns that drafting a byelaw explicitly in terms of banning commercial fishing vessels would be discriminatory. He suggested that including the words "prohibiting the retention on board, landing, or taking on board by any person" could address those concerns.

Mr. Boyce said that officers would take those comments made by Members today on board when drafting a byelaw.

The Senior Scientific Officer reported on an application to fish for clams using a box dredge in the southern part of the District. The applicant had been asked to provide further details of the proposal but these had not yet been received. It was suggested that if the applicant provided further details of the proposal, that it should be considered at the next meeting of the Joint Committee on 8^th September.

That the report be received.

The Senior Scientific Officer reported on a proposal to dredge for razor fish in Liverpool Bay. This proposal had been initially been considered by the Joint Committee in 2005 and a limited trial of fishing authorised, which did not take place at that time due to the sinking of the designated vessel. The developer had recently come back with a further proposal and a meeting was held with English Nature and the applicants at the Lancaster office to discuss this in more detail.

Members were advised that the proposed area was within the proposed Liverpool Bay SPA and because of the Committee’s inability to restrict numbers of authorisations issued under Byelaw 12, it was unlikely that English Nature would agree to any fishery where effort could not be limited. It was felt that the only way forward was the establishment of a Fishery Order and the developer had started the process of applying for a Several Order in the area in their own right. There was no longer an immediate proposal to dredge but the prospect of a longer term fishery there.

That the report be received.

The Senior Scientific Officer reported on applications to fish for cockles using a wet dredge in areas ranging from the North Wirral to Morecambe Bay. Experimental dredging had been carried out on the Ribble Estuary over the past few years and the Committee had previously considered an extension of the trials to Morecambe Bay.

Members were advised that a new officer was currently being appointed to investigate the possibility of a Fishery Order for Morecambe Bay and renewal of other Orders which expired in the next few years. Officers felt that proposals for wet dredging would likely form a plan or project under the Habitats Directive, requiring an Appropriate Assessment to be carried out and this could be a lengthy process. Officers had considered the present applications in detail and felt that these should be deferred until the activity could be considered as part of any new Regulating Order.

The Chairman drew attention to the recommendation and it was

Dr. Atkins presented the report updating Members on progress with Fishery Orders. The Committee had previously agreed to use an additional Fishery Officer post for the development of a new Fishery Order for Morecambe Bay and other Fishery Orders within the District. An appointment had now been made and it was hoped that the new Fishery Orders Development Officer, Bob Houghton, would be able to start work on the Fishery Orders in early July.

With regard to the renewal of the Menai Strait (West) Oyster, Mussel and Clam Fishery Order 1978 and the Conwy Estuary Mussel Fishery Regulating Order 1948 which expire in 2008, Members were advised that SFO Greta Hughes had expressed an interest in assisting with the renewal of these Orders and it had been agreed that this would form part of Dr. Hughes’ work programme for the next two or three years. The Conwy Mussel Development had approved proposals for progressing the renewal of the Conwy Order at its meeting in March. A joint meeting of the Mussel Development Group and Conwy Order Review Group would be arranged as soon as possible to progress renewal of that Order.

The Chief Executive presented the report briefing Members on the current Marine Bill consultation. The consultation did not contain detail relating to the future of SFCs or proposed changes to inshore fisheries management in the UK. There was one substantial section on fisheries entitled "Managing Marine Fisheries". Dr. Atkins reported that he had attended a consultation meeting in Liverpool on 10^th May and the consultation had also been discussed by the SAGB and ASFC.

The Fisheries section identified areas where legislation changes might be needed and there was a possibility that fisheries offences could be taken into the new fisheries management. Overall the role and duties of SFCs in fisheries enforcement was played down. Of particular interest to this Committee was a commitment in the consultation to try and improve and simplify the process for setting up and renewing Fishery Orders.

The other main themes of the Bill were the possible introduction of a strategic system of marine spatial planning; the reform of marine licensing regimes; the implementation of proposals for marine nature conservation and the case for a new marine management organisation.

Members were advised that the deadline for response to the consultation was 23^rd June. The Association of Sea Fisheries Committees would be submitting a strategic response and Members were asked to send any comments they wished to be included in this Committee’s response by 10^th June 2006.

In response to a question from Dr. Kaiser as to whether the Committee had been invited to provide comments on its response to the Marine Bill at a consultation meeting in Cardiff on 25^th May, the Chief Executive informed Members that he was aware of the meeting but had not received any formal invitation to attend or been invited to give a response.

The Chief Executive reported on recent DEFRA consultation on the introduction of a system of administrative penalties for fisheries offences. The proposal was in line with the present government’s policy to decriminalise some offences by moving to administrative or fixed penalties. A joint SFC response had been submitted by the Association of SFCs and no further response or comments from Officers or Members was required. It was felt that the Committee should give all possible assistance to DEFRA to make the scheme as effective and well thought out as possible.

The Chief Executive provided a briefing on progress with wind farm developments in the coastal waters off South Cumbria. Consultation documents for two proposed offshore wind farms at West of Duddon Sands and Walney had been received and Members’ contributions to the Committee’s response was sought. The deadlines for response were 19^th May for West of Duddon Sands and 5^th June for Walney but Officers had delayed the response to take account of Members’ comments today.

Officers had received an additional document from CEFAS who had carried out a study to identify those fishing activities that could be safely carried out in and around wind farms. The report concluded that in the first instance fishing should not be permitted anywhere within wind farms. Discussions had not been held with industry on this but it was thought that fishermen would not wish to tow gear or set nets within the area of wind farms. The safety considerations were likely to be too dangerous to do that and industry would likely lose those grounds.

With respect to the Environmental Statement, Dr. Atkins said although this attempted to review the cumulative impacts of all the developments it did not adequately analyse the total cumulative impact on the inshore fishing fleet of the District and it was possible that up to 300 jobs might be affected. There may well be opportunities to apply for compensation at some stage by those individuals adversely affected by these developments.

Of further concern was the increase in cabling on the sea bed of the eastern Irish Sea resulting from these and other developments and offshore installations. The area lost to fishing through cables and pipelines had not been analysed in the Environmental Statement.

Dr. Lockwood advised Members that the Kingfisher Chart Unit had produced an A3 laminated chart showing all proposed wind farms, all rigs and cable installations for the eastern Irish Sea. These could be obtained from the Kingfisher Chart Unit at the Seafish office in Hull.

Dr. Atkins said Members’ comments today would be incorporated in the Committee’s response.

The Chief Executive presented the report providing an update on the developments with this proposal and reminded Members of the additional tabled correspondence received in respect of this item. This was a letter from the Managing Director of Anglesey County Council (ACC).

Councillor Chorlton (ACC) queried why Members who had declared an interest in this item had not been asked to leave the meeting. Dr. Atkins explained that the report for discussion today had been prepared to provide consideration of the granting of the FEPA application only and it was not necessary that Members should leave during the discussion of this item.

Dr. Atkins in responding to the points raised in the ACC letter reported that the Committee had not taken any independent legal advice regarding the FEPA licence. The mussel industry had sought legal advice and was intending to put in an application for a Judicial Review. The Committee was responding to a request to provide a witness statement outlining the Committee’s position regarding the development and extent of the Order, the Committee’s role, the nature of the legislation and the way the Committee operated in terms of the lays and layholders.

With regard to the question on the grounds for disputing the granting of the licence, Dr Atkins pointed out that WAG had granted the FEPA licence against advice from CEFAS that the development could result in damage to the mussel industry. WAG had taken the view that conditions attached to the licence would adequately address those concerns. The industry and Committee had concerns that once work on the marina had started, monitoring would not restore the area to its former condition. CEFAS said they would like to see further studies carried out before the development went ahead to establish the risk of damage to the area and the site. The Committee believed that this risk had not been assessed. In addition it was felt that the Environmental Impact Assessment had been inadequate and no full Appropriate Assessment under the Habitats Directive had been conducted.

Dr. Atkins and the Chairman emphasised that the Committee’s role was to promote fisheries within the District and to protect the Order as far as possible. Officers felt that the Committee had adopted the right stance but the Committee also did not want to damage its relationship with the landowner and council.

Councillor Chorlton agreed with the need to protect the fishing industry and that it had been right to explore every avenue before the licence was granted. He now felt the Committee was going that extra mile in supporting the industry in its application for a Judicial Review.

Mr O. Roberts suggested that Anglesey County Council should understand that the Committee was trying to protect the largest mussel industry in the country. The development would not affect just one company but a large number of jobs as well.

Mr. Gorman pointed out that in supporting the proposal Anglesey County Council was itself providing support to a private company. He felt the value to the economy of the mussel industry outweighed any value coming from the marina.

The Chairman brought the discussion to a close by asking for a show of hands. Following a vote of 25 in favour, 1 against and 3 abstentions it was

The Senior Scientific Officer reported on the Shellfish Managers’ meeting held in Poole on 25^th to 27^th April 2006. Over recent years the group had been widened to include environmental interests and conservation agencies. The meeting had been an interesting and informative one. Fisheries issues and practices differed throughout the country and the meeting provided an opportunity to compare issues and management possibilities with other Committees and bodies.

In response to a question on the reference to a call for national measures to control cockle fishing the Principal Fishery Officer reported that Officers had been pressing to get a Statutory Instrument on a national minimum size for cockles which would enhance enforcement. General support for this had been received from South Wales, Cumbria and Thames Estuary but some Districts were reluctant to support this initiative. Following discussion at the Shellfish Managers’ meeting it had agreed that this should be progressed.

Mr Woods raised concerns that shellfish movement documents were still being issued despite the closure of the cockle beds and movement of cockles was still being permitted throughout the country. Mr. Boyce agreed to investigate this further with the local authorities.

That the report be received.

The Chief Executive advised Members that no significant health and safety issues had arisen since the last meeting. There was nothing further to report on this item.

That the report be received.

The Finance/Admin Officer presented the report providing Members with an up to date summary of the Committee’s financial situation. He reminded Members of the additional papers tabled in respect of this item which were the draft Financial Report for the period 1^st April 2005 to 31^st March 2006 and report from 1^st April to 30^th April 2006.

Mr. Davies advised Members that there would possibly be an operating surplus for the financial year 2005/06 of between £40,000 and £50,000, mainly from items that arose each year but that were not provided for in the budget. Interest rates had also been particularly good in the last financial year.

An audit of the accounts would take place in mid-June and it was hoped these would be completed in time for consideration at the next meeting of the Joint Committee in September.

The figures for the first month of the new financial year were within budget and it was hoped these would remain steady throughout the year.

That the report be received.

The Chief Executive gave a verbal report on the meeting of the Association of Sea Fisheries Committees held on 5^th April 2006, which had been attended by the Chairman and himself. The main items discussed included the Marine Bill consultation and Administrative Penalties, which had been considered earlier in today’s Agenda. The Chief Executive of the Association had coordinated the views of all SFCs and would submit a combined response to the consultation.

The next meeting of the Association would be on 21^st June at which the Gangmaster Licensing Authority shellfish gatherers consultation was likely to be discussed. This was also the date of the Annual Statutory Meeting and it was hoped that the Minister might have some comment to make on the future of Sea Fisheries Committee at that meeting.

That the report be received.

The Principal Fishery Officer presented the report covering the period 1^st January to 31^st March 2006. Mr. Boyce advised Members that close liaison had been maintained with the Gangmaster Licensing Authority and advice given to that authority on licensing standards in order to dovetail the national licensing regime with the Committee’s new permit scheme.

‘Aegis’ had recently completed her 10^th refit. It had been a very thorough refit and the vessel was in excellent condition. The ‘Aegis’ crew carried out all maintenance work on the vessel and were to be congratulated on the time and effort spent in upkeep of the vessel.

That the report be received.

(a) Irish Sea Forum

(b) Duddon Estuary Consultative Committee

(c) Sefton Beach Consultation Group.

(d) Dee Estuary Conservation Group

e) Traeth Lafan Local Nature Reserve Management Committee

(f) Marine Safety Sub-Committees

                (a) North West Region

                (b) North and Mid Wales Region

That under Section 100(A) of the Local Government Act 1972 the public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information defined in paragraph 4 of Part I of Schedule 12A of the Act.

The Chairman reported on a meeting of the Chairman’s Working Party/Personnel Sub-Committee held on 27^th February. Members of that Sub-Committee had discussed correspondence received from Anglesey Boat Company and Beaumaris Town Council concerning an unfortunate comment made by the previous Chief Executive in a private capacity; Byelaw 12 scallop authorisations and the question of Byelaw 9 sunset clauses. A number of staffing matters had also been considered.

That the report be received.

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

Top