View PDF - United Kingdom Parliament

83 Marine and Coastal Access Bill 26 OCTOBER 2009 Marine and Coastal Access Bill 84
[Lords]
[Lords]
[Mr. Austin Mitchell]
me take a detour from my main purpose, which is to
argue for the interests of fishing. By that, I mean his
kind of fishing, and my kind of fishing or Grimsby’s
kind of fishing—commercial fishing.
I return to these amendments, many of which are
similar to those moved by the hon. Member for St. Ives
(Andrew George), who is the vice chair of the all-party
group on fisheries—I am its chair. Our interests are
common and we work in the same way, except that he
tends to run with the fishing fox and hunt with the
conservation hounds. That is understandable, because
he is a Liberal Democrat and, thus, naturally confused
about his objectives. I do not think that we are sharply
opposed, but it is difficult to have it both ways on this
issue.
Andrew George: I caution the hon. Gentleman that it
would be unwise to attack people who are on his side. In
any case, he should recognise that the golden thread
that runs through the amendments that I have tabled
and that I am supporting is that the fishing industry
should be properly represented at every stage. The problem
with the Bill as drafted is that the socio-economic
considerations may be considered only at the point of
designation, and they will not be considered at the time
of a report or the introduction of a conservation policy
or byelaw. I simply want to ensure that there is consistency
throughout the Bill. I am merely looking for consistency,
not trying to run with different groups at different
times.
Mr. Mitchell: I agree absolutely with the hon. Gentleman.
I should not have made jibes; I am stirred to such anger
and passion by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading,
West (Martin Salter) that I am lashing out in all directions.
That was very naughty of me and I think we should
blame my hon. Friend, not me, for that.
As the hon. Member for St. Ives says, the designation
and the management of the regimes associated with
marine conservation zones will impose significant costs
on fishing activities. They will vary according to the
size, nature and designation of the zone, but the regulatory
impact assessment estimates that impacts on fisheries
will be worth between £157 million and £346 million
over 20 years. That can be found in table 8 on page 34 of
the impact assessment. That will be a significant cost
for fishing and it cannot be right or fair, if those
impacts on fishing are to be produced by the Bill, for
fishing to be expected to bear those costs without some
intervention from the Government.
The Bill as drafted does not place any obligation on
Government to manage the losses resulting from such
impacts or the loss of fishing rights. For that reason, I
want a duty imposed on the Minister to manage and
mitigate such effects on fishermen, because I think that
it is important to the industry to give it such a guarantee.
That is the basis of new clause 8. Amendment 44 is very
similar and calls for estimated costs to be assessed. We
need to know what the impact on fishing will be and
what costs will be imposed on the industry by the
fishing zones.
Amendment 24 concerns what is generally called the
fishing defence. In other words, when accidental damage
is done in the course of fishing—we do not advocate
that deliberate damage could or should be done by
fishing—there should be a defence on the grounds that
the damage could not have been avoided, if a fisherman
was acting responsibly and fishing within a zone under
the provisions of the byelaws or conservation orders.
We need a defence that protects against accidental
damage for those who are fishing, which is a traditional
activity that has always gone on in these zones and that
is to a degree threatened by them. The measure will not
protect in cases of intentional or reckless damage; it is
merely a safeguard for those who are fishing in accordance
with the existing fishing regimes and management plans
should they cause accidental damage. Without that
protection, fishermen might consider that the risks of
fishing in a marine conservation zone are too great.
Effectively, it could become a no-fish zone, adding to
the huge restrictions that operate in areas around our
coast. I would not want that to happen. Fishing needs
some kind of guarantee and protection.
7.15 pm
Amendment 42, tabled by the hon. Member for
St. Ives, echoes a number of amendments that I tabled
less successfully. It says that there should be a level
playing field between British and European vessels.
That is an important principle. My amendments were
probably rejected because those in the Table Office and
their associated psychologists know that whenever the
common fisheries policy is mentioned I froth at the mouth
and become incomprehensible. To protect the House
and to protect me, they did not select my amendments.
They selected those of the hon. Gentleman and I am
delighted that they did. We cannot have a situation in
which British fishermen are excluded because an area is
designated as a marine conservation zone whereas European
fishermen—either because they have historical rights or
because they are fishing under the basic principle of
quotas allocated by Brussels and the basic principle of
equal access to a common resource, which has been the
ruin of the British fishing industry—and others can
continue to fish. Such a regime could not be enforced—
fishing would not accept it, and it would be disastrous.
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on this amendment.
He must have steeled himself up to a degree of anti-
European enthusiasm that is uncharacteristic of his
party—I should not make jibes, I am sorry; he does not
need to respond. I congratulate him, because it concerns
an important basic principle. I hope that the Minister
can guarantee that any restrictions on fishing will not
come into force until they apply uniformly to all fishermen,
be they European or of other nationalities or be they
British. We cannot have a regime that is enforced unilaterally
on British fishermen.
Mr. Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con):
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the equal application
of the law is fundamental to its respect? The situation
that he is powerfully and rightly describing is likely to
bring the law that the Minister is introducing into
disrepute. For example, if Belgian beam trawlers are
hoovering up fish on the edge of the 6-mile limit in an
area that is a marine conservation zone, that will cause
immense concern to fishermen if they are prosecuted
for straying over the line.
Mr. Mitchell: That is absolutely correct. We have
already seen the anger that was produced on the east
coast when French fishermen came in and disrupted the