View PDF - United Kingdom Parliament

85 Marine and Coastal Access Bill 26 OCTOBER 2009 Marine and Coastal Access Bill 86
[Lords]
[Lords]
pots of fishermen from Scarborough, Bridlington and
Whitby. I do not want a repetition of that, because it
could lead to violence and would certainly lead to anger
and disrespect for the law. I hope that the Minister can
give us some guarantees on that situation. I know that it
is a difficult one, because of the principles of the
common fisheries policy, but it is still important that the
principle of equal access to a common resource should
not allow European fishermen to fish in our marine
conservation areas when British fishermen cannot. That
is a basic principle.
Ms Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab): Is
my hon. Friend aware that President Sarkozy, in July,
announced his intention to designate 20 per cent. of
France’s territorial waters as marine protected areas,
with half of them to be fishing free? Does he agree that
it would be in the interests of British fishermen and
women to have no-take zones in the areas where we
have responsibility?
Mr. Mitchell: Yes, but I am not sure what follows
from that. If fishing is to be totally excluded from the
French conservation zones, I would not want it to be
excluded from our conservation zones. I am not sure
that there is a quid pro quo there, but both systems have
to be treated the same, and fishermen in our areas must
be treated the same as European fishermen. The basic
principle is clear.
I come now to the masterpiece of my speech. I am
glad that it has been so entertaining, but I am extremely
concerned that the White Herring Fisheries Act 1771
should not be deleted, as proposed in the Bill, and I say
that not only as an historian and natural defender of
old—the Minister would say otiose—laws. He will note
that opposition to the repeal of the Act comes from all
sides of the House and from all parties that supported
my amendment, and is strongly felt by the fishing
industry. That is the most important point. We discussed
the matter with the Minister, who told us that the law is
irrelevant and that its repeal was part of the process of
clearing the broom cupboard of unnecessary legislation.
Fishermen see the 1771 Act as a protection of their
rights. It is an exciting Act; we should read it some time.
It provides a legal right for British fishermen to use all
UK ports and harbours, which is an important principle
to maintain. It allows fishermen to draw their boats up
on the beaches, which is particularly important in areas
such as Hastings, where there has been friction about
bringing the boats up on to the beaches. The Act
provides the legal right for fishing vessels to use wasteland
for storage purposes—all exciting stuff. Given that all
the fishing organisations have argued against its repeal
and want the Act maintained, I do not see that it is
necessary to scrub it.
I ask the Minister to reconsider and to keep the white
herring fisheries flag flying because of the importance
attached to it by the fishing industry. I draw his attention
to the fact that all parties in the House oppose the
repeal. It is not appropriate that the Act should be
repealed, given the rights that it gives to maintain access
for fisheries around the coast. Keeping it would not
contradict any other provisions of the Bill, so why not
keep it?
My last amendment is amendment 15, which is very
similar to amendment 41 tabled by my hon. Friend the
Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Doran). He is a
lawyer and I am not, so his opinion is likely to be more
valuable, interesting and important than mine. I speak
from a concern for fishing. He brings legal expertise to
the matter. We want to exclude fishing from the list of
restricted activities in the conservation zones. There is
no reason why fishing should be on the list. Fishing is
exercising its traditional right. Fishermen have always
fished these areas.
The Bill is not about conserving fish stocks. It is
about conserving the marine environment, which is not
damaged—I repeat, for the benefit of Reading listeners—by
fishing. It is conserved by fishing. It is therefore legitimate
to exclude fishing from the restrictions imposed. That is
what amendment 15 and, more eloquently, amendment 41
would do. If fishing needs a licence, as it does, it should
be excluded from the restrictions imposed in marine
conservation zones.
That is the list of amendments that I wished to speak
to. The common thread, which will emerge in the next
group as well, is a concern to clarify and sustain the
interests of fishing, which has a real concern about
conservation and should be mobilised for the Bill, not
restricted and damaged by it. I know that my hon.
Friend the Minister, who has consulted closely both
with the industry and with the all-party fisheries group,
has the interests of fishing at heart, but I would like him
to give us assurances before we decide whether to withdraw
or pursue the amendments. I do not want to be disruptive
in any way. That is not my disposition.
We need to clarify and assert the interests of fishing. I
hope the Minister can give us some guarantees against
the anxieties that I have spoken about, and guarantees
about the position of fishing. I trust my hon. Friend,
who has done a brilliant job in consulting and carrying
the industry with him. I hope he can give us some kind
of assurances before we decide on the fate of the
amendments.
Mr. Benyon: The amendments tabled by the hon.
Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) are very
interesting and, in some cases, very similar to those that
I submitted about 30 seconds after he did. We will come
to those later.
On new clause 8, the impact on the fishing industry is
a fundamental consideration. Groups of fishermen that
I have met over recent months have all been acutely
aware that without the conservation measures that they
are already implementing, such as real-time closures,
targets on discards—in some cases, those targets have
been extremely successful, although there is an enormous
amount of work to do—and technical measures, the
future of the industry would be far more bleak.
Marine conservation zones are a fundamental part of
my desire for the grandchildren and great-grandchildren
of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents who are fishing
today to have a job tomorrow, and to be able to do the
important work that fishermen do in addressing issues
such as food security, obesity, and healthy eating. It is
vital that we address the concerns about the marine
environment and ensure a long-term future for a variety
of socio-economic activities, of which fishing is the
primary one in our minds.
Mr. Cox: Does my hon. Friend agree that the
demonisation of the fishing industry by some of those
to whom I have been listening this evening is unhelpful