Mission -  OVERVIEW -  Departments - Islands Plan - Constitutional Review - FIDC - FLH - FCO - Relationship with UK  

Factsheet  - Government - FISHERIES - Mineral Exploration - Agriculture

Background - 2005 Reforms - Industry Supports Reforms - POLITICAL DEBATE

Legislative Council pass Fisheries Bill

August 2005

Chief Executive presents 'most important single legislative provision in years'

The Fisheries Bill has been passed by Legislative Council, with five votes in favour, two against and one abstention. The special meeting of Legislative Council was held on Friday, August 26, in the Court and Council Chamber for the debate of the Bill.

Government Chief Executive, Chris Simpkins, spoke on the proposed legislation and moved the second reading of the Bill. He explained the potential impact the Bill would have on the future economic vitality of the Falkland Islands, and the management of the fisheries. He said, "This Bill represents perhaps the most important single legislative provision that has been brought before this House for many years."

Mr Simpkins said the Bill represents the first major reform and restatement of law relating to fisheries resources and fisheries management since 1986, when the Fisheries Conservation and Management Ordinance 1986 was introduced to coincide with the initiation of the Falkland Islands Interim Conservation and Management Zone.

There have, he said, been significant developments in fisheries in the Falkland Islands in the intervening nineteen years, as well as a range of developments at international level in that period. "This Bill provides for updating the law to reflect these developments and, if passed, will stimulate the modernisation of the fishing industry and the promotion of economic growth."

Review and consultation

A "far reaching" review was undertaken during 2002, he said, which addressed fisheries policy, marine farming and port development. "Whilst the fisheries policy review focused on fisheries resource allocation issues, it also reviewed the mechanics of resource allocation together with other areas where the private sector interacts with the Falkland Islands Government as a regulatory authority."

The key outcome of the review, Mr Simpkins said, was the proposal to change from the current system of relatively short-term licences to introducing a system based on "transfer of property rights" in order to give fishing companies a long-term interest in the management and development of the fishery as a sustainable resource.

He said the fisheries policy review provided, "numerous opportunities for comment by the fishing industry and the public. The process began with a discussion with the fishing industry early in 2002 in order to gauge the direction which the review should take. A Policy Review Group, including representatives from the fisheries sector was established and a discussion document incorporating recommendations on future policy was prepared and published for public and industry comment midway through 2002.

"The results of the consultation process were taken into account and policy recommendations were examined by Executive Council during a series of meetings between March and October 2003. Since then Executive Council has continued to oversee the preparation of this Fisheries Conservation and Management Bill, which incorporates all the policy proposals approved by Executive Council."

Property rights

Mr Simpkins said the most significant outcome of the policy review was the recommendation to introduce property rights in the fishery. "The Falkland Islands has successfully met many challenges in the management and development of its fisheries resources over the last 20 years. In order to meet a new generation of challenges, the current licensing system, which is based on the allocation of non-transferable variable duration licences to individual vessels is to be replaced by a system of long-term individual transferable rights owned by Falkland Islanders.

"The anticipated gain is the enhanced economic performance of the sector, because fishing businesses will have increased security and flexibility, which will encourage diversification from a simple harvesting process into value-added activities. Increased international competitiveness will also be achieved, since poorly performing companies will be able to sell rights to better performing companies, should they so wish."

Implementing a rights-based regime in a relatively small maritime state is "challenging" said Mr Simpkins. "Small markets for rights, a desire to maintain local control of fishing rights and a dependence on foreign investments in the fisheries sector are key considerations in the design of an effective and efficient management regime. Additional considerations include the trade-off between the economic efficiency gains derived from output controlled fisheries and the relative administrative simplicity of input control fisheries."

He explained that under the proposed rights based system, monitoring of economic performance, including the value of rights, trades and rents agreed, will be, "key performance indicators alongside traditional biological measures of management performance."

Falkland Islands' expectations of the new regime, Mr Simpkins said, are based on international experience with rights-based systems over the last 30 years. These expectations help establish the basis or benchmarks against which the performance of a system can be judged.

"First, overall economic performance of a sector is expected to be enhanced because fishing businesses have increased security of access to the resource and flexibility in the way they decide to structure activities to take advantage of the business opportunities.

"Second, diversification should occur in the industry as companies look to investing value-added activities, such as processing and marketing.

"Third, it is expected that seafood companies would invest more in research and development because long-term rights mean that they will benefit from their investment and where those investments have longer pay-off periods.

"Fourth, and as I have said, international competitiveness should also be increased as poorly performing companies sell rights to better performing companies. No longer will they be forced to stay in a fishery unable to exit without losing everything.

"Finally, and as the profitability of the domestic seafood sector increases, Government income from personal and corporation tax and resource rents should increase. Unusually, a win-win economic environment is created."

Individual Transferable Quota (ITQ)

Fisheries in the Falkland Islands have traditionally been managed using effort limitation, said Mr Simpkins. "This Bill has been framed with the flexibility to allow fisheries to be declared either in terms of total allowable effort, as now, or total allowable catch. In the first instance, fisheries will continue to be managed using effort controls. The terminology of Individual Transferable Quota (ITQ) systems will be used and, whilst elsewhere these usually refer to catch, in the Falkland Islands, the quota will refer to a unit of fishing effort.

"Companies awarded property rights or quota in a particular fishery will be awarded a proportion of the total allowable effort declared for that fishery. In due course, total allowable catch could be used particularly for the longer lived fish species."

Mr Simpkins said property rights may also be allocated either as individual transferable quota (ITQ) or provisional quota (PQ). "The nature of the fisheries will determine which type of right is used. This will be assessed, taking into account the levels of biological exploitation and the levels of local investment in each fishery. Both ITQ and PQ generate an annual or seasonal catch entitlement at the start of each season or year.

"Catch entitlements accommodate the joint venture arrangements, which currently prevail in some of the fisheries but also serve to create a more robust market for trading rights. Catch entitlements are tradable, but expire at the end of a fishing season or fishing year. Catch entitlements, rather than ITQ, or as now the fishing licence, become the day to day currency of the rights based regime. Fishing vessels will still be required to have a fishing licence. The fishing licence is retained in the new management system to regulate fishing activity with respect to gear types and sizes and mitigation measures to limit the impact of fishing on dependent and associated fish stocks, on marine mammals, seabirds and the marine environment. Conservation and sustainability of the fishery remain key."

Unlike ITQ, Mr Simpkins said, joint venture companies can own catch entitlements even if Falkland Islands status holders have a minority share holding. He said the threshold for local ownership may be set at different levels in different fisheries.

"This allows existing joint ventures to continue with minimal disruption and leave the security of short-term access to fisheries to foreign investors. It is also expected that local companies will be more willing to trade short-duration catch entitlements rather than ITQ because this trade does not affect the company's long-term access to the fishery.

"In time the catch entitlement mechanism should see a faster rationalisation of the fishing fleet and effort than would otherwise have been the case if ITQ's alone were to be implemented.

"The Fisheries Ordinance has always covered main-stream fisheries management and conservation. In the current system, the issue of priority in licence applications and long-term licences has been a matter of policy rather than legislation."

Mr Simpkins said this Bill incorporates the issue of access to resource into the main instruments of fisheries legislation. "There are still issues, which will be the subject of policy decisions but the process is set out much more tightly in this Bill."

He said the proposed property rights system entails significant change in the operating environment for the private sector, adding, "There are also significant changes in the administration of the fishery, particularly in relation to the process of creating, awarding and administering property rights."

According to Mr Simpkins, the new system does not alter the Falkland Islands Government's powers to manage the fishery to achieve conservation targets. "If anything, these provisions are strengthened."

He said that, similarly, the new system does not alter the Government's ability to raise revenue from the fishery. "Fees for ITQ and PQ can be levied in much the same way as licence fees are currently levied.

"Property rights are not necessarily a panacea for fisheries development. Current Fisheries Policy, or what might more appropriate be described as Licence Allocation Policy, has served well. However, current policy has run its course and is in need of major revision and development. Whilst a range of options were available for policy development, the property rights route was selected as the most appropriate."

International Co-operation

Mr Simpkins said that the Bill before the House makes provision for international co-operation in relation to information exchange and combating illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing activity.

"The Bill formalises existing procedures whereby any fishery vessel blacklisted by CCAMLR (Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Life Resources) or other regional fisheries management organisations would not be authorised to fish in Falklands waters. Information including evidentiary material could be exchanged with other countries in support of the objectives of the agreement to promote compliance with international conservation and management measures by fishing vessels on the high seas and the agreement for the implementation of the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, relating to the conservation of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks."

Part 5 of the Bill, said Mr Simpkins, provides for the establishment of a disputes commission. The purpose of the disputes commission, he explained, is to review and adjudicate on certain matters, which may be referred to the commission. "It provides a dispute resolution mechanism, which can focus on fisheries issues and deal with them in an expeditious manner.

"It is expected that the introduction of property rights will see greater engagement between the government and industry on some fisheries management issues. Experience elsewhere suggests that strong and dynamic industry associations are likely to develop. The Bill provides for the establishment of a Falkland Islands fishing companies association. Additionally, provision is made for the application of a levy, which may, in turn, fund the activities of the association.

"The provisions in relation to enforcement and penalties are substantially overhauled. The Bill proposes the powers of fisheries officers in relation to offending vessels should be extended. The circumstances in which the Courts may order forfeiture of a fishing vessel upon conviction for certain offences are also extended.

"The Bill introduces a requirement that any overseas person in charge of a fishing vessel in Falkland Waters must be in possession of an Overseas Master Fishing Licence. The licence may be revoked if the holder is convicted of an offence under the ordinance, or if the holder has been convicted of any offence involving violence towards or maltreatment of any member of a crew of a fishing vessel, of which he was, at the time, an officer.

"The Bill also provides that, in these circumstances, a person may be prohibited from holding an Overseas Master Fishing Licence for a period of up to five years, with a prohibition being published in the Gazette."

Mr Simpkins said the Bill requires Executive Council to review the operation and success of the fisheries policy, "at least every 12 months" to "examine whether objectives are being achieved in relation to the proper utilisation, conservation and management of fisheries resources and associated issues in order to consider whether policies in relation to fisheries resources and fisheries management control and conservation should be changed."

Concluding his address Mr Simpkins said some three years have passed since the review of fisheries policy began, which "alone indicates that the process has not been rushed - on the contrary, consultation with all relevant interested parties has been extensive. An enormous amount of effort and time and energy has been invested in the process, which results in the Bill before the House today."

Mr Simpkins paid tribute to Councillor Cockwell, the Attorney General, the Director of Fisheries and the former Economic Adviser for "their stamina throughout the process."

Mike Summers abstains from voting but criticises the FCO

Councillor Mike Summers abstained from voting on all the issues put before the house on the Fisheries Bill. However he did comment on the process of the Bill and was particularly critical of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

He outlined his personal interest in the fishery industry: "I have a 25% interest in a trawler that works in Falkland Islands waters fishing for finfish. That, in terms of the Falklands fishery, is relatively small beer. I have no interest in loligo and an interest in toothfish.

"However, I understand that anybody who is involved in the fishing industry in the Falklands has the potential to be interested to a greater extent. I therefore accept that members of the public would expect me to declare an interest and do have the legitimate right to know what that interest is and to expect that it might grow in the future.

"There is also the issue that, since I am involved in the fishery, other people who are involved in the fishery might expect that I might at another time have a different interest. That is equally legitimate. There will, therefore, be a perception amongst members of the fishing industry that my interest is over-riding. I don't believe it is but I accept that they have the right to believe that."

He therefore asked that it be recorded that he would abstain from voting on all the many issues before the house on the Bill.

Councillor Summers did take the opportunity to comment on the process behind the Bill. He said the policy document that supports the Bill was produced in 2003. "The Foreign Office signally failed to deal with the issues that they should have dealt with in terms of the policy at that time and held up this Bill for an inordinate amount of time."

Councillor Summers said when the Bill was finally drafted in its first stages, the Foreign Office again failed to deal with the issues that were put forward to them. "This put this Council and the Falkland Islands Government in a rather difficult position." He said councillors were in a position to be passing, "at least, one of the most important pieces of legislation to come before this particular Council, very near the end of its life. That is not really satisfactory - it doesn't mean you shouldn't do it, but its not satisfactory."

Councillor Summers added that it has also resulted in the fact that some of the discussion and some further consultation that, perhaps, should have taken place, "has had to be curtailed".

"It has also meant that we have ended up having a special ExCo (Executive Council) and special LegCo (Legislative Council) to deal with this piece of legislation - I don't think that's satisfactory. Probably not all of the blame for this can be put in front of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but I think the majority of it can, and, I think, therefore, it is appropriate that it should be recorded."

In terms of the content of the Bill, Councillor Summers said he accepted and supported the principles and the purpose of the Bill, including a number of issues that had been raised by the Chief Executive that were not previously contained in Falkland Islands Fisheries Legislation, dealing with the protection of individuals on board fishing vessels and the exclusion from fishing in the Falklands of miscreants.

Councillor Summers said he believed that there is no loss of control by the Falkland Islands Fisheries Department over conservation management of the fishery under this new Bill.

He said, "I think the fact that the ownership of property rights in the fishing industry will be transferred to Falkland Islands' companies - to status-holders - can only be a good thing. It has taken a long time in the development to wrest control of the fishery from basically foreign interests back into Falkland Islands interests and I think we will see significant development as a result, therefore, I support the principles of this Bill."

However, Councillor Summers said there were issues of content with which some will feel "unhappy", adding "we will have to deal with that".

He said that it did not become apparent in the production of the policy document for the Bill that it was intended by the Foreign Office - and the Governor - that Executive Council should have a very limited role in the management of the items that fall under the Bill.

"It took a long time for that to be brought to the surface. In fact, it only really surfaced when the first drafts of the Bill became available. It was never discussed as a matter of policy, even though we were assured that all policy matters that are relevant to this Bill had been discussed in Executive Council - that had not. As I understand it, requests to have that policy reviewed by Executive Council were denied by the Governor. I think that is wholly inappropriate, and I have to say so in this House.

"We did finally, at five to twelve, or even one minute to twelve in terms of the drafting of this Bill, get agreement from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that Executive Council should have a role in the management of the fishing industry. And that the Governor acting in his discretion should not be the principal management role over the Falklands fishery. I think that says a lot about the current relationship between some of the parties. I am very happy that now Executive Council does have a role through an amendment that we have been able to make to section four of the Bill. Had that amendment not been made, I would have voted against the Bill."

Councillor Summers said there is still a provision in the Bill for the Governor to be able to act in his discretion. He said the reason for that is that there are legitimate interests of the United Kingdom Government to deal with issues that involve international affairs, "foreign affairs, if you choose, on which they on many an occasion need to act, and I think that's quite right."

But, he pointed out, "There is no provision in the Bill for the Governor to have to report to Executive Council any time that he acts in his discretion. I have objected to this but I do understand that there are Constitutional issues about doing this."

In the further review of the Constitution, Councillor Summers said, he hoped either this council or the future council will, "pursue this issue and ensure that not only, in terms of the fishery but any other matter that involves the governance of the Falkland Islands, when the Governor acts in his discretion, there is a duty and obligation to report the matter to Executive Council."

In terms of the content of the Bill at large, Councillor Summers said there will be and has been comment on the issue of the sale or non-sale of ITQ and PQ. He said, "I know that there are some people who feel uncomfortable with the fact that ITQ is not being sold to companies but has been passed over for free. I was uneasy about this when we first started discussing the policy but I have been persuaded that it's not necessary to raise a fee for the allocation of ITQ."

He explained that the reason for this is, "The government will continue to receive income from the fishery and from fishing companies through licence fees and taxation, and if the government were to start charging what it regarded as the market value of ITQ to companies, then their ability to continue to pay licence fees to the extent that we may wish year on year might be curtailed. That wouldn't be necessarily in our interests."

He continued, "There are, perhaps, other issues in the Bill that might have withstood some more rigorous economic analysis - and this may be one of them - but for the meantime I am satisfied that ITQ should not be sold."

There are some issues under the Bill that are critical to some people that are not yet defined, in particular, criteria for licensing, said Councillor Summers. "It's not satisfactory that that isn't part of the Bill, certainly not satisfactory that there aren't at least policy papers on what the intentions are in respect of the criteria for licensing. And, I think that's a serious weakness that, I believe, may be dealt with before the end of this council. I certainly hope that it will."

Richard Cockwell: 'this will benefit all Islanders'

Councillor Richard Cockwell, Chairman of the Fisheries Advisory Committee, supported the Bill. He said he had shared the Honourable Mike Summers' concerns and frustrations over the time the Bill had taken to come through and that he personally regretted the fact that a special Legislative Council meeting was called in which to discuss it.

He said that although he respected Councillor Edwards' concerns, he didn't believe that this Bill could be compared with the Stanley Fisheries issue, saying, "The Stanley Fisheries issue was a group of inexperienced people who decided they were going to set up and manage something which they had no experience in whatsoever, with a consequent disaster. We now have an experienced fishing industry with experienced fishing companies, who are in a very different position. I don't think that the policy behind Stanley Fisheries was wrong, it was just the implementation which was wrong."

He said one thing he regretted which is not clear is, "the protection of smaller fishing companies, who feel exposed because of the issues of eligibility and granting of ITQ and PQ." He added, "I hope that this will be dealt with within the life of this Council."

Councillor Cockwell gave his personal assurance that he did not believe that anybody who had been involved in the formulation of the Bill had any intention that smaller fishing companies should be disadvantaged: "if anything, the contrary, they should be encouraged to be active as long as they quality to obtain ITQ."

Councillor Cockwell expressed his gratitude to the people who have spent "many, many gallons of midnight oil producing this Bill and working on the drafting of this Bill, which has been very complex. Its been one of the most complex bills we have had for a long time. And in particular the Attorney General and the Director of Fisheries and, of course, Mike Harte, who was the economic adviser at the time and also the members of the working group, who went through every single clause."

He said the Bill would make a big difference not only to the Falkland Islands fishing industry but to Falkland Islanders themselves. "There is not a Falkland Islander who is not touched and has not benefited from the fishing industry and the setting up of the fishing industry in the Falklands and this gives the industry a change to develop and expand."

He added, "More of the money which has been generated by our industry, which we never see in the Falkland Islands, will pass through the Falkland Islands and we will see the benefit of it."

Councillor Cockwell corrected Councillor Roger Edwards on a point he had made that the government could not recover any ITQ once it had been granted to qualifying companies; he said, "Clause 33 gives grounds on which the grant of individual transferable quota provision may be revoked, so there are ways in which it can be revoked."

However, on Tuesday Councillor Edwards said that is incorrect. He said, "Clause 33 allows the Director of Fisheries to revoke the grant of ITQ to a company but not to recover quota. All that government can do is ensure quota is sold on, or transferred in some way, to another company the name of which appears on the relevant Eligibility Register."

Jan Cheek: in favour of 'investment that will boost the Falklands'

Councillor Jan Cheek declared her interest in the fishing industry and referred interested parties to the Register of Members' Interests, which has, in full detail, all her fisheries interests as a boat owner, as an operator and as a director of several fishing companies.

Councillor Cheek said that over the years the policy has taken to devise, there has been huge input from many members of the industry and officials, adding, "it hasn't been undertaken lightly.

"Undoubtedly some companies, such as those I operate, will benefit from the added security. But that added security should encourage the kind of investment that will boost the Falkland Islands' share of the value of a huge fishery of which, at the moment, only a tiny fraction of that income comes ashore.

"I am also in favour of this Bill because of the strengthening of the powers of conservation measures. The Director of Fisheries will be able to reduce any fishery by whatever percentage conservation requirements dictate - even to the point of reducing a given fishery to zero. I think this is incredibly important. Serious fishing companies and the Falkland Islands interests are served by long-term sustainability and I believe this Bill works very hard to strengthen it.

"Not only does it strengthen powers in terms of conservation measures but it extends the power of enforcement of regulations for those who wish to poach or cheat in any way will find it much harder to get away with it on technicalities in the future. The powers of the Director of Fisheries are much strengthened.

"I am especially pleased, as a responsible Councillor, individual human being, that there are additional powers to deal with the maltreatment of crews. We've been deeply frustrated in years past by our inability to deal with that problem and I am hoping that with the way that these (powers) can be enforced, vessel owners will think carefully about the kind of officers they employ and realise that in this part of the world, at least, maltreatment of crews is totally unacceptable."

Councillor Cheek said that having declared her interest she did support the Bill for the reasons she had outlined.

John Birmingham: anonymous letter

Councillor John Birmingham said he didn't think the Bill had everyone's full approval adding, "there are certain aspects of this that I am a little bit concerned about." He said his only interest was to promote and push forward the fishing industry of the Falkland Islands.

He then read out an anonymous letter councillors had received which intimated that the Bill would only serve to better councillors. (On Tuesday Councillor Birmingham explained he had read the letter out to demonstrate the kind of misunderstanding that exists concerning the fisheries legislation.)

He said he thought people on the streets would be talking about the Bill, "more than ordinary members of the public have been discussing anything to do with fishing over the last three years."

In addressing Legislative Council he said he was a supporter of the Bill and had been convinced from some time ago that it was the "way ahead", but he agreed with Councillor Roger Edwards that the 25 year time scale is a long time. He said that there would be controls in place to "prevent anyone doing anything illegal or dishonest."

He said 25 years ago the situation in the Falklands was different. "How many people owned their own farms 25 years ago? I would suggest not too many and, looking back, I would also suggest that some people may well think that they perhaps made the wrong decision for buying them. Times do change, we have to move on. There is a risk to this Bill but there is a risk to everything."

Stephen Luxton: 'its about bringing more money back into the Falklands'

Councillor Stephen Luxton declared an interest and briefly elaborated on it before saying he thought the important point to the Bill is that it is about bringing control of the fishery of the Falkland Islands "back to the hands of the Falkland Islanders."

He added, "It's about strengthening our domestic industry and, more than anything else, perhaps, about bringing more money back into the Falklands. At the moment we only have a very small proportion of the potential income from the Falkland Islands fisheries actually come back into the Falklands and I think this is a step in the right direction in terms of bringing those assets home."

He concluded, "I am not 100% happy with every single provision but, as Councillor Hansen said, I think the advantages very much outweigh the disadvantages."

Ian Hansen: advantages far outweigh disadvantages

Councillor Ian Hansen chose to be brief, admitting, "There are those who have far more experience in the fishing industry than I." However he added, "We are all aware of its importance."

Councillor Hansen said he had listened to views of all the fishing industry, and he hoped he had an understanding of the different concerns that have been expressed. He said the conclusion he had reached is that the advantages of the Bill for the fishery and for the Falkland Islands "far outweighs the disadvantages", adding "I believe the fundamental policy is right and correct."

Roger Edwards: 'against the Bill as it stands'

Councillor Roger Edwards declared an interest in the Falklands fishing industry saying his interest is presently only in toothfish, "for which there is no provisional quota under this particular ordinance."

Councillor Edwards said that although he was not entirely happy with the Bill as it stands, he agreed with the Chief Executive that an awful lot of work has been done towards it, adding, "much of the Bill was bits and pieces that were desperately required in the Falklands."

He said legislation was required to look after the safety of the vessels, the crews, and the personnel involved in the fishery.

However, he added, "My prime problem with this Bill is the timescale involved. Government gives these rights for a period of 25 years and, during that period of 25 years, government cannot be given those rights back. They may purchase them somewhere along the way but they have no rights to get them back. Yes, we have heard that ExCo can sit and discuss to see how the companies are doing - those companies that have these rights. They do not have the powers to take those rights back. They can force a company to sell them on.

"25 years is an awful long time. If we think back 25 years, there was a group of people in these Islands from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office talking about leaseback to the Argentines. The Falklands war has happened, we didn't even have a fisheries zone. It wasn't until 1986 that the Falklands Interim Conservation Zone was brought into being. We had no licensing policies at all, there were no local fishing licenses. 25 years is an awful long time and my feeling is that it is too long to give these rights out without Government under any circumstances getting them back.

"They claim, through this Bill, that conservation is going to be better controlled. Well, those fishing companies who now have these rights are going to be pushing like hell that the ITQ is never reduced to zero because that is all Government can do."

Councillor Edwards said he had argued some time back within council that should ITQ fall to zero for a couple of years then the government should have the rights back, so they could properly oversee conservation. He said that was refused.

Lastly, he said, it is a matter of a level playing field for all the fishing companies. "In the presence of the members of the public only the other day, the Chairman of the Fisheries Advisory Committee, when asked about what criteria would be imposed, said we don't know because we don't know who is going to apply - surely that is a very odd response?"

Councillor Edwards did not vote in favour of the Bill: "Even though my interests in fishing would be enhanced under this Bill, I am afraid I cannot support this Bill as it stands."

Norma Edwards: government shouldn't give away rights

In speaking to the Bill, Councillor Norma Edwards said she would not support the legislation. "I can't support it because I don't believe that we should be giving away our rights." She added, "The assets of a country shouldn't be there to be given away."

Mrs Edwards said she was sure the Bill was well written, and commented on the amount of work that had gone into it, adding, "It is the principle that I dislike entirely and I am afraid I would not support this Bill. The Chief Executive, when he spoke earlier, said there must be economic vitality, or creative economic vitality to the fishing industry.

"Well, I think there must be an alternative way to stimulating the fisheries into pursuing better economic growth and I don't think we've looked at any other ways of doing this. I don't disagree that we shouldn't give comfort to the fishing companies - our local fishing companies - encourage them to pursue better business arrangements and all the rest of it, but I don't think that Government should be giving away fishing rights."

First published in the Penguin News on 2 September 2005 and reproduced by kind permission of the Editor

Introduction, Acronyms, Census, Freedoms, Geography, Government, Governors, Lifestyle, Listed Buildings, Poetry, Royal Visits
HOME, FACT FILE, BACKGROUND, HISTORY, NOTICE BOARD, BOOKS, LINKS

Site Designed and Maintained by eb-host.com