T. R. Glover (Chairman) Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council

R. Brassington Environment Agency

A. Brecknell DEFRA

D. Clapham Blackpool Borough Council

R. J. Gorman Welsh Assembly Government

C. Grunshaw Lancashire County Council

M. S. Hamer Lancashire County Council

G. Hancock DEFRA

H. P. Hughes Gwynedd County Council

A. Jones Welsh Assembly Government

T. Jones Welsh Assembly Government

M. J. Kaiser Welsh Assembly Government

D. T. Knowles Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council

S. J. Lockwood Welsh Assembly Government

A. Marklew DEFRA

A. J. Markley Cumbria County Council

J. D. Murphy Cumbria County Council

M. R. Owen DEFRA

N. Parker DEFRA

M. Porter DEFRA

V. K. Riley Lancashire County Council

O. J. Roberts Welsh Assembly Government

W. G. Roberts Gwynedd County Council

E. D. Tew Conwy County Borough Council

C. Woods DEFRA

S. M. Atkins

I. V. Andrews

M. R. Boyce

W. Cook

J. Davies

G. Osborn

Members declared an interest in pecuniary and non-pecuniary interest in Agenda items as follows:

Item 5 – Byelaw 14: Cockle Fishery – Seasonal Closure. Mrs. M. R. Owen.

Item 6 – Byelaw 12 – Scallop Authorisations and Proposed Scallop Box – Tremadog Bay. Mr. A. Jones, Mr. O. J. Roberts.

Item 8 – Cockle and Mussel Fisheries Management – Proposed Permit Scheme Byelaw. Mrs. M. R. Owen, Mr. C. J. Woods.

Item 9 - Update on Confirmation of New Byelaws. Mr. A. Jones, Mr. C. J. Woods.

Item 10 – Fishery Orders. Mr. A. Jones, Mrs. M. R. Owen, Mr. O. J. Roberts, Mr. C. J. Woods.

Item 11 – Government Bass Consultation. Mrs. M. R. Owen.

Item 12 – Government Strategies. Dr. S. J. Lockwood.

Item 13 – Gwynt y Mor Wind Farm Consultation. Mr. A. Jones, Mr. M. Porter, Dr. S. J. Lockwood.

Item 22 – Menai Strait (East) Several Order: Proposed Legal Action by Anglesey County Council. Mr. T. Jones, Dr. M. J. Kaiser.

That the proceedings of the Joint Committee held on 25^th November 2005 be approved and signed as a correct record by the Chairman.

The Principal Fishery Officer presented the report, appraising Members on the progress of a byelaw for a closed season for cockles, extending throughout the District. Members were reminded that this byelaw had been ‘made’ at the last Joint Committee meeting in November 2005, following which it had been submitted to DEFRA for legal comment. DEFRA lawyers had suggested amendments to the wording of the byelaw in order to retain flexibility to close beds outside the closed season, additionally to permit the removal of cockles within the closed season for scientific or stock management purposes. Those suggested amendments had been incorporated in the draft byelaw at Annex B to the report.

The Principal Fishery Officer presented the report informing Members of progress with the issue of authorisations for scallop fishing within the District, and the proposed designation of a ‘scallop box’ in Tremadog Bay. Members were reminded of the Supplementary Report tabled in respect of this item. The Committee’s new Byelaw 9 permitted those vessels that had historically fished within the District to apply for authorisations to continue fishing if they could provide a track record of that activity between June 2002 and June 2004. Over 35 applications had been received for ‘sunset’ authorisations. Officers had looked through all historical records held to identify those vessels eligible to fish within the 3 to 6 mile limit and had requested assistance from DEFRA with this. These investigations were ongoing and the Chief Executive was seeking instructions from Members to set up an appropriate working group to arbitrate on those applications where it was likely to be difficult to agree the criteria under Byelaw 9. Any Member wishing to be considered for that group should advise Officers of their interest.

Mr. O. J. Roberts raised concerns that information from the Llyn Peninsula Fishermen’s Association, which had been sent to the Committee on this issue, had not been brought to Members’ attention. It was suggested that this related more to the second part of the report dealing with Tremadog Bay and should be considered at that time.

In response to a question from Mr. Gorman as to how many of the vessels over the size limit allowed under Byelaw 9 felt they had an entitlement for authorisation under the ‘sunset’ clause, Members were advised that of the 38 applications received only a small proportion had historically fished within that part of the District and would therefore be eligible. To date six authorisations for scallop dredging had been issued.

With respect to the second part of the report concerning the authorising of scallop dredging within the Pen Llyn a’r Sarnau SAC, Members were reminded of the tabled Supplementary Report and chart, which showed some of the areas of concern. Conservation advice from CCW had been presented to the Special Meeting of the Scientific and Byelaws Sub-Committee held on 3^rd November 2005, which indicated that the activity, if authorised, could damage features of the site and possibly result in court action. Co-ordinates and a map of the defined area in Northern Tremadog Bay had subsequently been sent to CCW and their formal advice sought on the implications for the SAC of scallop dredging within that box. The response from CCW indicated that their advice remained the same as previously given. Officers felt the surveys carried out by CCW offered real scientific evidence that there were definite features in the proposed scallop box that could be harmed. For the Committee to issue authorisations against CCWs advice could run the risk of court action in the European Court of Justice and the UK Government being found in breach of the Habitats Regulations.

Mr. Alwyn Jones informed Members that vessels fishing the area were mostly small day boats operating from Caernarfon, Nefyn and Pwllheli. Fishing activity had been carried out there over the years without any effects on the features.

Mr. Gorman proposed that the Committee should issue authorisations for scalloping within the proposed box and risk these being overruled by Ministers. He felt that the activity would not harm the area in the long term.

Dr. Kaiser raised a query about the legislation on SACs and how this related to any activity that was present and ongoing at the time of designation. Mr. Cook advised Members that it was understood that historical events were no longer exempt and the activity would still be subject to the regulation process.

Mr. O. J. Roberts informed Members that no-one from CCW had been present at the Special Meeting of the Scientific and Byelaw Sub-Committee held in November 2005. It was suggested that Officers should write to CCW and express the Committee’s disappointment that no representative from that agency had been able to attend the meeting.

The Chief Executive suggested that in view of the earlier points made about non-circulation of information to Members the paper from Miles Hoskin should be circulated with the minutes of today’s meeting.

Members were reminded of the recommendation in this matter and following a vote it was

The Principal Fishery Officer reported that following the last Joint Committee meeting on 25^th November Byelaws 24, 25 and 30 had been submitted to DEFRA for comments. Informal comment on permit restrictions with respect to Byelaw 30 had been received and all three byelaws would now be advertised, together with the new Byelaw 14, in the week beginning 6^th February.

That the report be received.

Members discussed the report, which had been prepared to consider the future of the cockle and mussel permit scheme. The current District-wide permit scheme was operated as a derogation to a temporary closure under Byelaw 13A. That byelaw was not designed for that purpose and legal advice received is that any permanent permit scheme should be operated under a new byelaw, constituted expressly for that purpose. The current permit scheme had been extended for a further year under Byelaw 13A but this would be superseded by the closed season byelaw if it were confirmed in time.

DEFRA lawyers had confirmed that the Committee would be unable to charge for permits. Their advice also indicated a deviation from previous advice in that it would be possible for the Committee to restrict numbers, but such restriction would need to be included within the body of any new byelaw. It was felt that the most fair and equitable way of achieving this would be through natural wastage and Members agreed that this approach would be the best way forward.

Members’ comments were sought on the best way forward to frame a new byelaw. Any comments would be incorporated into a draft byelaw, which would be sent to DEFRA and WAG for legal advice before being re-drafted and submitted to the Joint Committee for consideration. Comments should be submitted to the Lancaster office before the end of February

In response to a question as to whether there would be adequate provision in the new proposals should local bona fide fishermen wish to start up in the industry, Members were advised that paragraph 3.3 of the Officers report stated that a small number of permits would be retained for new entrants to the industry.

Mrs. Owen felt that permits should be restricted to bona fide fishermen and suggested that a letter from the Tax Office would confirm those persons who were full-time fisherman with a track record. Dr. Atkins agreed that such criteria would be considered to see if it was permissible.

With respect to the suggestion of including a clause allowing non-permit holders to remove a small, specified quantity of cockles or mussels from a fishery, Dr. Atkins felt that a figure of between 2kg and 5 kg would be appropriate. Mr. Marklew suggested that 2kg would be adequate.

Following a discussion it was

The Senior Scientific Officer introduced the report informing Members of renewed industry interest in harvesting seed mussels from the Dyfi Estuary. Members were reminded that experimental harvesting of mussels from a former cockle bed had been authorised in the past to see if the bed could be restored to its former productivity. It was felt that a further monitored scientific trial would be inappropriate and it was suggested that authorisations should be issued to industry to fish one-quarter of the bed and the activity monitored to see if it encouraged the recruitment of the cockle bed.

A similar situation had arisen at Malltraeth on Anglesey where a high settlement of mussels bad been found on a cockle bed. It was suggested that Officers should liaise with CCW to try to reach agreement on the harvesting of mussels from that bed also.

The Chief Executive reported that the Committee had received representations to look again at Fishery Orders within the District. The work to establish or renew Fishery Orders was complex and could take some years to complete. The Morecambe Bay Fishery Order was due to expire in January 2009 and any new Order would need to be as wide-ranging as could be achieved within a Regulating Order.

Members were reminded that two further Orders within the District would expire in 2008, namely the Conwy Mussel Fishery Order 1948 and the Menai Strait (West) Oyster, Mussel and Clam Fishery Order 1978. All three Orders would need to be renewed if the Committee was not to lose the management measures provided by them. The budget for 2006/07 included provision for the appointment of a further member of staff. Officers were recommending that any new Officer should be given the responsibility to work on the renewal of the Conwy and Menai Strait (West) Orders, and to start work on the development of a Fishery Order for Morecambe Bay.

Dr. Lockwood said that although he would not oppose the recommendation, he had reservations that the work on Fishery Orders could be included with the duties of a Fishery Officer without encroaching on enforcement work. The Chief Executive advised Members that it was intended that the work on Fishery Orders would be the priority for the first two or three years, with enforcement being a secondary role during that time.

The Senior Scientific Officer presented the report informing Members of consultation by DEFRA and WAG on proposed conservation measures for bass and seeking Members’ views on the proposals. The consultation was the first round of what was proposed to be a raft of measures to improve the size and numbers of bass available to both commercial and recreational fishermen. The initial proposal was for an increase in the minimum landing size of bass from 36cm to 45cm, with an increase in mesh size from 90mm to 105mm. The proposed measures had been discussed by the Association of SFCs and also by the Chief Officers Group. The view from those groups was that the measures would discriminate against UK fishermen and any increase in MLS should be staged over several years. It is understood that this national legislation would only apply to commercial fishing from UK registered boats and recreation angling would fall outside the scope of the proposals.

Mrs. Owen reported on a recent meeting with the Fisheries Minister at which the bass proposals had been discussed. Mr. Marklew advised that he was also present at that meeting and the concerns raised were very specific to Morecambe Bay. Mrs. Owen expressed concern that if mesh size was increased salmon would get caught in the nets and the Environment Agency would likely impose a ban on salmon fishing

Mr. Hancock stated that he was involved in bringing the bass consultation to the country. He would like the opportunity to explain the reasons for the proposals and to try and answer some of the questions relating to European involvement. A meeting had been held with DEFRA to try and work out the best way of achieving a situation where stocks could be improved and available to everyone. The first criteria was the benefits that would accrue to the UK and to the inshore fishermen.

The Officers report had expressed concerns that an increase to 45cm MLS would lead to widespread increase in the size of bass nearer the shore. It was felt that most of the larger bass moved offshore and this was likely to continue. Mr. Hancock advised Members that CEFAS had carried out recent tagging studies within the offshore and inshore fisheries and information gained from those studies indicated that adult bass migrated less offshore during spawning migrations and adults tended to return to the same inshore coastal locations. He felt that the Officers concerns on this matter might be incorrect.

Members were advised that on 24^th November 2005 a joint petition was presented to the EU Commission from the European Bass Group and Bass Anglers’ Sportfishing Society for an EU increase in MLS so that bass could reproduce at least once during a life cycle, also for a closed season between February to April, in all EU waters. The petition went forward and was upheld. The petition was then submitted to the Fisheries Commission and British Government so that it would run concurrently. MLS and associated net changes had been produced first rather than the whole package being introduced together.

Mr. Hancock presented the report and information to Officers and asked that his comments should be used in consideration of the Committee’s response to the consultation.

Mr. Gorman stated that he was in agreement with the ASFC view of the proposals and felt that any legislation applying only to the commercial sector was unfair and discriminatory. Any increase should be staged over several years and monitored. Mr. Hamer felt he was unable to agree to any proposals that discriminated against the British fishing industry

                2. That the additional report from Member Mr. Hancock be received.

                3. That the report be received.

The Chief Executive reported on a number of strategy and policy developments that were currently in progress. There are five separate strategy documents currently being prepared, relating to the marine environment in general and the fishing industry in particular. Dr. Atkins went through each of the various strategies and outlined actions taken by Officers with these.

With respect to the UK National Strategic Plan for Fisheries, the deadline for response for this was 17^th February and the Association of Sea Fisheries Committees would be submitting a joint response on this.

The National Assembly for Wales had established two groups to develop a Welsh Fisheries Strategy. The Senior Scientific Officer had attended the most recent meeting of the Steering Group and Members Dr. S. J. Lockwood was Chair of the Stakeholder Group.

With respect to the English Shellfish Strategy, Members were advised that Officers had provided input into this.

Any comments or suggestions for a response to these strategies would be welcomed and Members would be kept informed of progress with them

The Senior Scientific Officer presented the report informing Members of consultation regarding permissions for the Gwynt Y Mor Wind Farm. A copy of the application and map of the site location were provided at Annex A to the report. Although the majority of the area was outside the Committee’s District the loss of fishing grounds within the turbine area would be of significant concern for many vessels based within the District. There were a number of concerns on the proposals and Officers proposed to include those concerns in their response. These included the loss of fishing areas due to oil and gas development, the increasing number of wind farms and the fact that the area of the proposed wind farm was a very important fish spawning ground. Any comments submitted by Members with regard to the consultation would be incorporated in the Committee’s response.

Mr. Porter said he was pleased to see an acknowledgement in the proposed response that there would likely be a significant impact on vessels with mobile gear. He asked what support the Committee could provide to those fishermen seeking compensation when they had to diversify. Mr. Alwyn Jones and Mr. Hamer agreed with those comments and hoped the Committee would be able support the industry through what were very difficult times. Members were advised that their comments would be taken on board in the Committee response. Mr. Porter asked that it be noted that the Committee would support fishermen in any compensation claim if it became necessary.

Dr. Lockwood advised Members that there were three tiers to the assessment, a non-technical summary, an Environmental Statement and a Technical Report on fishing activity, the latter document which he had produced. As far this assessment was concerned Dr. Lockwood said he had made a notional estimate of what the site was worth to the fishing industry. A National Committee comprising national fishing representatives was presently in negotiation with the offshore wind industry to discuss compensation. CEFAS and Seafish were undertaking a review to assess the value of the fishery and what the loss to the industry might be. Until that work is completed the National Committee would not come to any conclusion on compensation.

Following a discussion it was

                2. That the report be received.

The Chief Executive informed Members that no Health and Safety incidents had occurred over the last few months.

                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. The report, which would normally have been submitted to the Finance and General Purposes Sub-Committee, covered the period to the end of December 2005. Figures at the end of January 2006 were virtually unchanged.

                That the report be received.

The Senior Scientific Officer reported on progress with the new post of Marine Biodiversity Officer. The new post holder was Miss Ingrid Iredale, the Committee’s Research Assistant for the lobster v-notching project. This post, which was initially for 12 months, was part-funded by CCW, with the Committee providing managerial support. A work programme had been agreed with CCW and this was provided at Annex A to the report. The post commenced on 1^st December 2005 and to date inspections and surveys of intertidal shellfish beds in North Wales that were re-opened under the District-wide permit scheme have been carried out. It was hoped that CCW would repeat the funding if the post was successful. Members would be kept informed of developments.

In response to a question as to whether the post would only cover the Welsh part of the District, Mr. Cook confirmed that this was the case. Talks had been held with English Nature about possible grant aid for the English part of the District but this would probably not be under the same framework.