View PDF - United Kingdom Parliament

91 Marine and Coastal Access Bill 26 OCTOBER 2009 Marine and Coastal Access Bill 92
[Lords]
[Lords]
[Mr. Austin Mitchell]
from the Opposition Front Bench, given that we have
rightly heard nothing good about it before now. If he
does not earn the trust of fishermen, because they have
inflicted on them the consequences of accidental damage
in MCZs, and if he will not allow for the fishing defence
that my amendment proposes, he will not have a working
co-operation with them by which to enforce the rules
that he wants to enforce.
Mr. Benyon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for
giving me this opportunity to say that I have not at any
stage supported or praised the CFP. Indeed, I have
nothing but contempt for it, because it has failed to
conserve fish or enhance the fishing industry. I want a
very different policy to emerge from this process. I
suggest that the hon. Gentleman should read the Bill. If
I may say so, for someone who is so experienced in these
matters, he betrays an ignorance about what the Bill is
intended to achieve.
As I have said, I am not in the game of demonising
fishermen, and I believe that they have an important
role to play in marine conservation. However, I am
concerned about the irresponsible, dishonest few who
do not understand the damage that unsustainable fishing
practices are doing to our planet. It is the activities of
those individuals that the Bill must address, not those of
law-abiding people or of people who, through no fault
of their own—perhaps because of the weather—find
themselves fishing in an MCZ. There should be measures
in the Bill to protect them, and I urge the Minister to
read the relevant clause. I would prefer to see this
matter addressed as part of the CFP reforms in 2012.
That seemed to be the direction of travel that the
Minister was taking in Committee, and I seek his
reassurance that that is still the case.
7.45pm
On Government amendment 5, I note that we raised
concerns in Committee about the sea fishing defence.
The amendment gives reassurance that the Minister will
address the loophole. We are glad that the loophole is
being addressed, so we support the amendment.
We agree with the sentiment of amendment 42, but
we also have concerns. Foreign vessels should be subject
to the same rules as UK vessels. We are bound by the
CFP in this area. This is an important issue, and there
are legal issues to consider. We need to push this matter
in relation to CFP reform. If the conservation measures
in the Bill are to be truly effective, we must ensure that
they are respected by all vessels operating in this area,
whether foreign or UK.
I support the sentiment behind the hon. Member for
Great Grimsby’s amendment 17, which is very similar
to one that we had tried to introduce, regarding the
fascinating White Herring Fisheries Act 1771. In the
interests of rationalising legislation, the Bill will repeal
that law along with a number of others. He has rightly
referred to Hastings. I was in Hastings all day on
Thursday to hear about the level of crisis in the community,
and about how people are clinging on by their fingernails.
Hastings has the largest beach-launched fishery in Europe,
and those people want to know that the Bill provides for
them. The 1771 Act provides British fishermen with the
legal right to use all UK ports and harbours, allows
fishermen to draw their boats up on the beaches and
provides fishing vessels with the legal right to use wasteland
for storage purposes. For the sake of rationalising legislation,
it is not appropriate to repeal the 1771 Act, given the
rights that it affords to maintain access to fisheries
around the coast. Furthermore, maintaining that legislation
is not contrary to any other measure in the Bill. No
other part of the Bill extends the statutory rights that
would be lost, so the proposed repeal should be withdrawn.
The hon. Gentleman’s amendment 15 and our
amendment 36 try to achieve the same thing, so although
we might disagree on some things, we agree on others.
At this late stage in the Bill’s passage, the Department
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has suggested
that clause 66(1) would apply to fishing activity. This
issue is an important concern for fishing communities.
The right to fish in the UK is a public right, and its
exercise should not require, constitutionally, a licence. If
it does not require a licence, it cannot subsequently be
exempted under subsection (3). To avoid any doubt, the
non-application of this measure to a fishing activity
must appear in primary legislation. If anyone is worried
that I am asking for a completely de-regulated fishing
industry, that is not what I am saying. In any event, the
ability to deploy fishing gear is strictly controllable
through other legislation. To apply this measure to it as
well would mean that fishing boats having to comply
with two licensing regimes, which would complicate,
rather than streamline, licensing for fishing.
Mr. Frank Doran (Aberdeen, North) (Lab): Now
that I am rising to speak, I think that we are to hear a
full set of office-bearers from the all-party fisheries
group, as the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell
(Matthew Taylor) will probably speak later.
For those of us who represent fishing communities, it
is important that we protect and argue for our industry,
and we must make it clear—I am sure that my hon.
Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell)
takes the same view—that we welcome the Bill. It is
important to get it right, but we must also take account
of all the stakeholders, the key stakeholders being those
in the fishing industry. I was interested to hear the
comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading,
West (Martin Salter), who tends to put a lot of vitality
into all the campaigns that he fights. I appreciate that.
However, Reading is a long way from having a fishing
industry and a real understanding of how it operates.
I was interested, too, to hear the measured approach
taken by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon),
which is a welcome relief from what we are used to
hearing from Conservative Front Benchers in any debate
involving the fishing industry: basically, a call for UDI—a
unilateral declaration of independence from Europe. I
think that we all share the same view on the CFP, which
has not been good for the industry anywhere in Europe,
and far less here in the UK. However, their previous
position was not sensible, and I am pleased that they are
moving towards a much more appropriate one.
I wish to speak principally in support of amendment 41,
which I tabled, and amendment 17, which I signed, but
also in support, more or less, of my hon. Friend the
Member for Great Grimsby. I do not foam at the mouth
when the CFP is mentioned, as I hope to make clear.
Mr. MacNeil: I would like to speak in support of the
hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and
against the CFP. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned