317 AT A SPECIAL MEETING TO DISCUSS THE WAG CONSULTATION ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT AND ENFORCEMENT OF SEA FISHERIES IN WELSH WATERS held at the School of Ocean Sciences, Menai Bridge on Wednesday, 30^th July 2008

PRESENT (MEMBERS) OFFICERS

S. J. Lockwood (Chairman) S. Atkins

S. Blackburn I. V. Andrews

G. E. Evans M. Boyce

R. J. Gorman V. Prieto

H. P. Hughes H. Frost

D. Hutchinson G. Hughes

C. McGregor A. Owen

K. Mould P. Rowley

R. L. Owen C. Williams

O. J. Roberts

E. D. Tew

C. Woods

318 CHAIRMAN’S ANNOUNCEMENTS

The Chairman welcomed new Members Councillor C. McGregor from Anglesey County Council, also Councillors G. E. Evans from Ceredigion County Council and D. Hutchinson from Flintshire County Council who had arrived during the course of the meeting.

The Chairman also welcomed Marine Biodiversity Officer V. Prieto, Senior Fishery Officer G. Hughes, Master/Fishery Officer H. Frost, Fishery Officer A. Owen, Engineer P. Rowley and Crew C. Williams to the meeting.

The Chairman welcomed visitor Mr. James Wilson to the meeting.

319 WAG CONSULTATION: A PROPOSAL FOR THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT AND ENFORCEMENT OF SEA FISHERIES IN WELSH WATERS

The Chairman opened the meeting by saying that this was an extremely important subject with ramifications for many years to come and all Members were urged to contribute to the discussions. The Chief Executive had prepared a report and draft Committee response to the WAG consultation for consideration. There were three principal options to form the basis for that response, firstly to defend the status quo; secondly to accept there should be a unified fisheries body in Wales, adopting the model being developed by DEFRA in England based on the Marine Bill, and thirdly a more radical change with the whole management structure being unified within WAG. Mr. Mould suggested that a fourth option would be the introduction of two IFCAs, one for North Wales and one for South Wales.

Mr. Gorman felt that if there was going to be a change it might as well be a radical one and said he could live with one Committee for Wales. WAG was going to be run from Aberystwyth in future and Mr. Gorman said he would go with either the Assembly model, with everyone represented in some way, or an all Wales Committee.

Mr. O. J. Roberts agreed with those comments. He had always been the biggest supporter of the Committee but felt that for the last two or three years, since the disbandment of Sub-Committees, fishing industry representatives had lost out and been outvoted by councillors. He would favour an all Wales Committee with an open mind on both options.

Mr. Woods felt that the consensus of opinion from North Wales would be to adopt the fourth option. Fishermen on the English side of the Dee felt that if the third option was adopted and the management of sea fisheries in Welsh waters was taken in-house, local input into decision making via the industry would likely suffer. The Chairman suggested that the response could include that whatever structure was adopted in the future it should include full representation for fishing or fishing activity undertaken in Wales. Mr. Woods also expressed concerns about the possible dividing line and future management of the Dee estuary.

The Chairman took Members through the consultation letter and invited Members’ comments on this. Members agreed that the consultation did not contain sufficient detail on any of the options listed to enable the Committee to make a properly informed response but the majority view was for some variation on a Wales-based committee.

The Chairman then suggested that Members should move on to discussion of the draft response provided in Annex B of the report. It was agreed that the range of views expressed by Members should be indicated in the introduction. Amendments suggested to the response were to paragraph 3, line 3 (Recommendations) to remove 2 from the reference to IFCAS, paragraph 5 (Risk) where it was felt that the comment on the last line was an overstatement of the situation and should be re-worded accordingly; and paragraphs 6 to 8 (the preferred option). Amendments were also agreed to paragraphs 10-15 (Allegations against SFC); paragraph 26 (Options); 27 to 29 (Status quo options) and 40 (Option 3 Transfer SFC functions to WAG). It was pointed out that in the WAG consultation referring to the fleet structure this did not consider the use of patrol vessels and Members agreed that the response should include a section to emphasise the importance of the use of patrol vessels. Further amendments included paragraph 41 (Funding); 42 (Legislation); 47 (Powers and implementation) and 53 (end of quadrennial period.

At this point the Chairman offered the Committee’s Fishery Officers an opportunity to make a brief statement or comment on any issues of importance they felt may have been overlooked during the discussions. No comments were offered.

It was suggested, and agreed, that Members should have an opportunity to comment on the re-drafted response before this was submitted to WAG to ensure that all comments and amendments had been incorporated.

The Chairman suggested that despite the concerns expressed in the response, this should include a positive statement that the Committee wished to be fully engaged in the implementation of the option selected.

The Chairman brought the discussion to a close by thanking all Members for their contribution and it was

There being no further business the Chairman thanked Members for attending and declared the meeting closed at 1305 hours.

Top