Examination of Witnesses (Questions 260-267)
MR BRUCE
BENNETT AND
MR CHRIS
VENMORE
14 DECEMBER 2004
Q260 Ms Atherton: Which paper?
Mr Bennett: You know the one the
Committee wrote on the future of the UK fishing.
Mr Venmore: The one we submitted.
Mr Bennett: If we do not really
look at that and really take account of it and try to get in as
much as we possibly can, I am afraid it all comes back to having
control of our own waters. If we do not, we are on a long, slippery
slope—or maybe a short one.
Q261 Chairman: What is your reaction
to the points and penalties system to enforce the compliance that
the strategy unit wants?
Mr Bennett: That is a difficult
one, is it not? It seems a bit strange to us, to be honest. We
were talking about it coming up on the train this morning and
it could be a bit dodgy, this business of a fishery officer being
able to give a fine. We are open minded, we will go on looking
at it, but we are not that struck on it, are we, nor are our members.
Mr Venmore: No. We have no problem
with the punishment being an administrative punishment, in other
words penalty points or stopping of the licence for a set period
of time. We will support that. It is against British justice quite
honestly to have a fisheries officer who may be on the quayside
with you every day being in a position to impose a fine. That
is wrong. We would rather, if administrative penalties are coming
in, that it go through the normal procedure. All right, get rid
of the criminal aspect if you wish, but it should not be judged
by one person; it needs to be judged by our peers, quite frankly.
Chairman: Can we finish on strategic
environmental assessments (SEAs) and environmental impact assessments?
Q262 Mr Lazarowicz: It has been suggested
that strategic environmental assessments be introduced for both
inshore and for offshore fisheries and also that environmental
impact assessments are carried out prior to the introduction of
new gear to a fishery or indeed to the start of a new fishery.
What is your reaction to those proposals? What impact do you think
such procedures would have on your sector?
Mr Venmore: It obviously depends
on the type of gear we are actually talking about. We are very
strongly opposed to certain methods of fishing at the moment because
of the damage it has done to the seabed and to the stock. If you
just take the modern scallop dredge, for example, you have between
five and seven tonnes of ironmongery being dragged along the seabed.
Q263 Chairman: Is this beam trawling?
Mr Venmore: Scallop dredge on
a beam; yes, it is a form of beam trawling, but it is where the
beam is not all metal, only the chain matrix underneath it is
metal and the beam itself. The scallop dredge has seven, eight,
up to 20 dredges hanging off this beam and can weigh seven tonnes
or more. That destroys the seabed. We have an area near us called
the Exeters, which at one time was a prime crab ground. The rough
ground stood up on the echo-sounder somewhere around six or seven
feet high.
Q264 Mr Lazarowicz: If there had been
an environmental impact assessment on that, it might have resulted
in the position being different.
Mr Venmore: It might have stopped
it; now there is nothing, it is gone, it does not show up. That
is why our inshore chart is so important. We have protected areas
there. Some of those areas have never seen any metal and that
is why it works.
Q265 Mr Lazarowicz: So do you have a
view on SEAs or on the impact assessments? Do you have a view
as an organisation?
Mr Venmore: We have not actually
discussed it. I can only speak on a personal level. If there is
going to be any form of fishery which damages the marine environment
or other species, then it does need to be very, very carefully
looked at and that can be done with the Seafish Industry Authority.
It is absolutely vital and we would come along with the angler
who said—one of them seemed to be slightly different from
the others—that he was all for controlling the method of
fishing to help the stock as opposed to making that stock solely
for anglers. We would go along with that. We need to control the
method; we have had our minister trying very hard, for instance,
to control the bass pair-trawl fishery. Unfortunately so far he
has failed. It will get there; the NGOs and the green parties
will force that through. That sort of thing is what is needed.
We have to come down to environmentally friendly forms of fishing
and that is by far and away the best way forward.
Mr Bennett: We understand that
it is very difficult just to say ban beam trawling, because it
is no good, it is damaging the bottom, but you just cannot do
it overnight. This is where the Government have to look at that
and put it in a timetable. I honestly think that if all this damage
had not been done over the last 20 or 30 years we would be in
a far better position now. I honestly think that.
Mr Venmore: We did a paper a few
years back suggesting that in the same way as farmers have been
encouraged to go organic and have been given grants to do so,
we felt that MAFF, as it then was, Defra now should be giving
grants to certain forms of fishing to convert to a more environmentally
friendly form of fishing, just to see them over that hump of two
or three years when they are actually going to suffer. I do not
think it would be that expensive. In five years' time we would
have a fishery we could be proud of again, we really would. We
have to do it.
Q266 Chairman: I am afraid it has been
a plea which has fallen on deaf ears for a long time. Thank you
very much, gentlemen. It is important for us to have the views
of the shellfishermen in the light of the enhanced importance
that the strategy unit gives shellfisheries. We are very grateful
to you for coming and giving evidence this afternoon.
Mr Bennett: I am also the chairman
of the shellfish committee of the National Federation of Fishermen's
Organisation (NFFO). They are singing along the same lines. It
is not just our little association.
Q267 Chairman: No, I accept that. They
gave their evidence earlier on and it is what we are hearing from
other organisations as well. We are grateful to you specifically
for today. Thank you.
Mr Venmore: Thank you all for
your time. Keep fighting for us, we need it.
Chairman: Thank you.
| 
