Andrew
George: The amendment clearly implies that the
geographical target is between the 6 and 12-mile zone, unless I have
misunderstood it, yet many of the comments so far relate to areas
within the 6-mile zone. I want to make it clear that we are talking
specifically about the 6 to 12-mile zone being affected. I want to
understand why the amendment would not deal with any area either within
the 6-mile zone or beyond the 12-mile zone.
Mr.
Brown: The hon. Gentleman is correct. I shall finish by
re-emphasising to the Ministers that if they are not minded to accept
the amendment, I sincerely hope that they will take the issue away for
further serious consideration at a later
stage.
Mr.
Benyon: One frustration of the Bill is that we could end
up securing and protecting large areas of our seas from our own
fishermen, but fishermen with historic fishing rights from abroad will
be able to come in and fish more or less as they please. This matter
must be seen in the context of CFP reform. We have to reach an
understanding across Europe that the only way successfully to manage
fisheries is to control them. A much greater degree of control of our
seas out to 12 miles must be the ultimate aim of CFP reform as we
approach
2012. 10.15
am One
solution that must have crossed Members’ minds would be to
remove subsection (4), but I understand why such an amendment has not
been moved. I have heard informally that the Minister will say that the
clause must remain part of the Bill because its provisions are a
fundamental part of European law, and that the Government do not want
to contravene it. We want the Government to assure us that they have
heard our serious concerns and are taking steps to secure MCZs from the
few fishermen who might be inclined to misbehave in those areas. We
should not protect our marine areas only from our own fishermen; those
from other parts of the EU who enter an MCZ and break the law by
damaging the area should be guilty of a criminal
offence.
Mr.
Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that if that is not the
case, the Bill will be nothing more than a few nice ideas, and that it
will remain so? Our fishermen will be forced to sit on their hands, and
there will be a great sense of animosity as European vessels plunder
the conservation
zones.
Mr.
Benyon: We must not put all fishermen in the same bracket.
We shall come later to an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for St.
Ives that refers to coastal communities. Many coastal communities are
hanging on by their fingertips, so we should be protecting those people
in a vast social endeavour in order to secure their
viability.
My hon.
Friend the Member for Broxbourne is right that our fishermen could be
restrained; they want to fish in an entirely proper fashion, and they
want their children and their grandchildren to become fishermen and
harvest the seas in a sustainable fashion. The risk is that
restrictions are being placed on them, but not on fishermen from abroad
with historic fishing rights. It is vital that the Government clarify
the matter.
Andrew
George: I wish to add a few remarks to this important
debate. It is a subject to which I drew attention on Second Reading. We
need to balance what we are trying to achieve in the Bill—its
primary purpose is the promotion of marine conservation—and
ensuring that our coastal communities, particularly those that depend
upon the fishing industry for their commercial future, are maintained.
It is must be done with care.
The amendment
clearly does not address the sentiment expressed by those who are
promoting it. From the geographical point of view, if one wants to
ensure that fishing is not exempted from the provisions of the clause,
the intention—the sentiment—must be to ensure that they
are applied as widely as possible. It should go from the coast to the
median line, or even out to the 200-mile limit. I understand and
entirely sympathise with the sentiment behind the amendment. I am sure
that the Minister will say that the CFP would clearly come into play,
and a lot of the intentions would need to be achieved through
international, member-state-wide, European negotiation. However, simply
restricting the measure to the 6 to 12-mile zone, as the amendment
would, would be rather odd. Perhaps we will have the opportunity to
come back to the
issue. A
view that that has underpinned many of the remarks that have been made
is that the fishing industry is of one opinion on everything, but there
is a lot of conflict among fishermen regarding different techniques.
For example, scallop dredging is clearly in conflict with lots of other
fishing activities.
Linda
Gilroy: I hope the hon. Gentleman agrees that continental
fishermen, like our own fishermen, have a great interest in
conservation and they are increasingly co-operating. Does he think that
the sort of set-up that we are trying to bring about with the Bill
prepares us for those sorts of discussions with other European
countries?
Andrew
George: I think that that is right. The intention must be
to ensure that such negotiations draw out the best views from other
member states. Some in the fishing industry say that the use of scallop
dredgers and heavy beams is like heavily ploughing an area of land
again and again.
Mr.
Walker: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the amendment
would allow the promotion of best
practice in MCZs? Perhaps we will have to help certain fishermen to
change their methods, and we should support them. Our seas are under
huge threat, and if we are to have a voice at international level, we
have to be seen to be making progress in those parts of the ocean where
we can influence fishing
practices.
Andrew
George: I agree and have no difficulty with that. When the
Minister responds, perhaps this afternoon, I should like some
reassurance that we are talking about the provision of byelaws, which
are currently available to sea fisheries committees, to police the
conflict between different fishing techniques and to take into account
the impact of one fishing technique on the marine biodiversity of an
area. It is important that the provisions focus on the most destructive
and least selective techniques, so we need to look at the clause
again.
I return to
the point I made in an intervention on the hon. Member for Carmarthen,
West and South Pembrokeshire. In bringing fishing within the provision,
one has to demonstrate that the activity is reckless or intentionally
damaging, which is the most difficult thing to do. Damage to the marine
environment is caused by certain fishing activities and techniques,
which the fishing industry fully acknowledges, but we need to establish
that the intention is to cause damage. I do not think we can do that.
It is a worthwhile debate, but I hope it can be
balanced.
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs (Huw Irranca-Davies): It has been a worthwhile
debate. The issue was raised extensively on Second Reading by a number
of Members, and it has now been raised by seven hon. Members in major
speeches and interventions in this debate. I understand what
they are saying.
10.25
am The
Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put (Standing Order
No.
88). Adjourned
till this day at One
o’clock.
| 
