Meeting with David Miliband.

[davem2005]

PLEASED YOU ANSWERED MY COMMENTS DAVE NOT IN THE WAY I EXPECTED BUT YOU DID NEVERLESS, STILL WAITING FOR YOU TO SAY YOU WOULD BE WILLING TO TALK TO OPERSITION PARTIES OTHER THAN LABOUR I LIVE IN HOPE!!!! AS I SAID IN MY FIRST COMMENTS THERE IS ALWAYS MORE THAN ONE SIDE TO A STORY BEST TO HEAR IT ALL BEFORE MAKING A FINAL DESISION OH! AND DONT FORGET THERE IS STILL THE MOVMENT OF BLOCKING THE BILL WITH A LEGAL CHALLENGE THROUGH THE COURTS DONT FORGET

Paul,
I can not understand why you would expect me to talk to other parties. I will help local anglers talk to anyone they think could help our cause. If you think there is someone we should be contacting just let me know and I would be happy to help out ...

You have a PM from me.

Cheers
Dave

[PAUL.S.HARRISON.SNR]

PLEASED YOU ANSWERED MY COMMENTS DAVE NOT IN THE WAY I EXPECTED BUT YOU DID NEVERLESS, STILL WAITING FOR YOU TO SAY YOU WOULD BE WILLING TO TALK TO OPERSITION PARTIES OTHER THAN LABOUR I LIVE IN HOPE!!!! AS I SAID IN MY FIRST COMMENTS THERE IS ALWAYS MORE THAN ONE SIDE TO A STORY BEST TO HEAR IT ALL BEFORE MAKING A FINAL DESISION OH! AND DONT FORGET THERE IS STILL THE MOVMENT OF BLOCKING THE BILL WITH A LEGAL CHALLENGE THROUGH THE COURTS DONT FORGET

THANKS FOR THE PRIVATE MESSAGE NOTHING I SAY NEED BE PRIVATE HAPPY TO PRINT IT ALL
Paul

I have reported your last post on the miliband thread to the moderators
for the simple reason I consider it a personal slur on me.

I have asked them not to delete the thread and have no intention of
debating your comments in open forum. You have obviously got no idea of
what I do or my personal feelings as regards to getting a better deal for
RSA's in the long term. I am sorry that you have misunderstood my
intentions on this matter.

Regards
Dave
BUT THANKS FOR THE THOUGHT HA HA

[willywetegg]

once this law is changed and it all goes tits up where will you be, in another cushy job

Got to say Paul, if you think that was something that will help our case then you need to think again. I have spoken to more than Dave about this and I know what they get for their trouble. Snide comments like that on forums like this.

Here is a question for you, how much of your own time would you put in free of charge, then to come on here and have it thrown in your face by someone who hasn't a clue about what you are doing.

I have said before and this is the last time I will be repeating it. Personal attacks on NESA are not allowed. If they continue I will delete the people that are making them.

Jim.

[Oblickta]

Well done Dave and Graham, "any dialogue” regardless of political bias can only be good for RSA. I feel sure future governments will persue the situation in spite of who introduced the bill.

“there is more than one side to this argument meet with an oposition and find out there views before you give miliband any type of creedance.”

BRING IT ON. Any debate from anywhere is welcome in my eyes but I cant remember any “opposition” setting up face to face meetings with RSA’s.

PAUL. S. HARRISON.SNR: In the last year I have fished with Dave many times and enjoyed many post-fishing beers with him and I can assure you Dave doesn’t receive a penny for his efforts and if you can prove otherwise I challenge you to post your findings on NESA or any other forum.

As for myself, I listen to all sides of the debates and will make up my own mind as to what I will do when/if the bill becomes statute but until then I wont judge people or their opinions.

Publishing a PM without mutual consent in open forum, in my opinion, is a betrayal of the senders trust and despicable

People like Dave and Graham who sacrifice their valuable time should be applauded for their efforts and not brought down by "keyboard warriors" who know little about what they preach

[willywetegg]

Publishing a PM without mutual consent in open forum, in my opinion, is a betrayal of the senders trust and despicable

Quite correct Graham and some thing that has (I hope) been taken care of.

It will not be tolerated in future.

Anything posted on here that has previously been posted by another person no matter where, will not be reproduced on here without that persons permission.

Jim.

[codonly]

licence

page 50 in todays daily star."quote"
labour angling spokesman martin salter told the commons that sea anglers could see benifits if they are asked to pay for a licence.
his comments came in a debate on the new marine bill which will give the government power to introduce sea fishing permits.
the mp for reading west also suggested the creation of a 'golden mile' of protected coastal water where commercial fishing will be banned and the stocks left for anglers to target.
he added"we need to give sea anglers the confidence that the marine bill will put measures in place to protect stocks."

[davem2005]

page 50 in todays daily star."quote"
labour angling spokesman martin salter told the commons that sea anglers could see benifits if they are asked to pay for a licence.
his comments came in a debate on the new marine bill which will give the government power to introduce sea fishing permits.
the mp for reading west also suggested the creation of a 'golden mile' of protected coastal water where commercial fishing will be banned and the stocks left for anglers to target.
he added"we need to give sea anglers the confidence that the marine bill will put measures in place to protect stocks."

This was also the message put over by David Miliband. The parliamentary debate (19/04/2007)was an all party affair for adjournment of the white paper. From my reading of it appeared to have all party support with a few minor queries over wording of individual paragraphs. The first mention of recreational sea angling appears here http://www.publications.parliament.u...70419-0016.htm
where the use of white deisel for recreational boats is discussed and what to do with the extra revenue earned.

Its long winded but very relevant.Here is the word for word transcript of what was said in parliament by Martin Salter.

"Martin Salter (Reading, West) (Lab): It is always a great privilege to be called to speak on any occasion, but particularly so for me today, which is my
19 Apr 2007 : Column 530
birthday—[Hon. Members: “Ah”.] Clearly, the marine environment was a subject close to my wife’s heart when she presented me with a birthday present at 7.30 this morning. It was a book, “Salmon Fishing in the Yemen”—an iconic study of an interesting project, which some of my colleagues will recognise as a literary masterpiece. It was a welcome birthday present and I intend to continue the same theme of the marine environment in my speech.

I support much of the marine White Paper, which I and many colleagues on both sides of the House have long campaigned for. I particularly want to deal with measures to protect the marine environment, to improve fish stocks, to stop the over-exploitation of our inshore waters and, of course and inevitably, I want to extol the benefits of recreational sea angling. I also want to sound a note of caution for the Government in respect of any attempts to introduce a sea angling licence and deal with the preconditions necessary to make such a licence acceptable to the recreational sea angling sector.

I should also declare that, from time to time, I advise the Minister for Sport and his colleagues on angling matters. I am particularly grateful for the guidance, support and assistance of people such as Richard Ferre, chairman of the National Federation of Sea Anglers, John Leballeur, chairman of the Bass Anglers Sportsfishing Society, and Leon Roskilly of the Sea Anglers Conservation Network.

The marine environment is a precious resource and we all have a duty to protect it, to help it develop and to help to sustain it. I very much echo the comments of the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall). Uxbridge, like Reading, does not have a lot of coast, although as global warming and climate change continue, we may both have more than we want. As the hon. Gentleman said, we all have the right to take an interest in and to comment on the marine environment and we all have a duty to protect it.

The Labour party manifesto of 2005 included a commitment to a marine Act to

“introduce a new framework for the seas based on marine spatial planning that balances conservation, energy and resource needs. To obtain best value from different uses of our valuable marine resources, we must maintain and protect the ecosystems on which they depend.”

Before that, the strategy unit in Downing street produced marine stewardship reports, the first of which was entitled “Safeguarding our Seas”. Again, it shared this vision of clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse ocean and seas around our coasts. Clearly, there is political commitment and fine words, which we need to turn into practice. I believe that the marine White Paper, “A Sea Change”, is a definitive document, which points the way forward for introducing a new framework for managing the seas.

The Minister in his contribution drew attention to the alarming decline in fish stocks globally. Some 25 per cent. of all species are depleted, or, in other words, at risk, and 52 per cent. are fully exploited. No one wants to see a collapse in fish stocks, as happened—this was referred to earlier—on the Grand Banks in Newfoundland, which was once one of the world’s finest cod fisheries. That collapse, which was a result of greed, commercial exploitation and short-sightedness by the commercial sector, had a devastating impact on the fisheries and fishing communities that
19 Apr 2007 : Column 531
depended on the Grand Banks. They have still not recovered, despite stringent and vigorous efforts by the US and Canadian Governments.

I sometimes despair at the short-sighted approach of a number of those in the commercial sector, who set their faces against every attempt to introduce sensible conservation measures to ensure a sustainable fishery. It was rather regrettable—all Members will share my sadness on reading the press reports—that not only was the president of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations in court a while ago for breaches of quota and submitting false returns, but so was the chairman of that organisation. That organisation will quite virulently attack the Minister and any other Member who stands up in the House and has the courage and foresight to put forward arguments in favour of the conservation of marine species. Perhaps the NFFO needs to put its own house in order before rushing to make judgments.

Coming back to the worrying statistics that the Minister shared with us, it is simply not sustainable to have 70 per cent. of global fish stocks either depleted or fully exploited. The marine Bill, or most of it, will be particularly welcome for recreational sea anglers. In particular, they will welcome the commitment to establish marine conservation zones in order to aid the recovery of rare or threatened species, and to protect spawning grounds, areas where marine species gather and are vulnerable to commercial exploitation, and, quite rightly, features of particular geographic interest. They welcome the proposed reform of sea fisheries committees. The committees have not had sufficient representation from the recreational sea angling sector. Recreational sea anglers especially welcome the strengthening of enforcement powers to tackle the abuse of conservation measures and widespread illegal fishing, including, in particular, coastal netting. Currently, the sea fishery committee that covers the Essex and Kent area and is responsible for hundreds of miles of coastline has just two fishery protection vehicles—covering all that coastline, all the estuaries, and all the sea out to the 6 mile limit. If our fisheries are to be sustainable and enhanced, they need better protection. There is a resource implication, but there is also a legislative argument to be borne in mind.

I want to turn to the benefits of recreational sea angling. Why should anybody worry about the recreational sector? Why should any politician worry about it? Well, there are a million people involved, and they vote. That is probably a good reason. The hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) rightly drew attention to the fact that the sector is worth £538 million in England and Wales alone and makes a contribution to the UK economy of £1.3 billion annually. In employment terms, there are about 20,000 people involved in the recreational sea angling sector alone. A healthy and vibrant recreational sea angling sector provides a huge economic benefit from tourism as well as social benefits. That compares fairly favourably with the commercial sector, which sucks up about £90 million in Government support, which equates to something like £10,000 per full-time fisherman. I do not begrudge that support, but, financially, we need to put both sides of the argument.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It goes on and can be read here.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070419/debtext/70419-0018.htm

Its a worthwhile read and a real eye opener as to the intentions of the white paper and how it will affect anglers.

We need to be sure that in the event we end up paying a license fee it wont be until we see changes that benifit us as anglers. The governments track record and inparticular that of Ben Bradshaw in providing legislation is not good to say the least so we need to ensure we get improvements before we pay any license fee.

Cheers
Dave

[PAUL.S.HARRISON.SNR]

Reply

Sorry that I have taken a bit to reply but been busy myself the last few days doing things for others in my own time without any charge. I do know what and how much energy can be spent on issues when following up on something and giving up your own time to do this, I'v been doing this since the age of about 7 and I'm now 51 and still doing the same. OH! and I've never asked for anything or expected anything in return. If you belive I owe davem 2005 an apology for publishing an email that was sent to me personally, I beleive this then becomes my property to do with as I wish, then OK DAVEM 2005 I APPOLIGISE because I've been asked to do this for you. The debate over this licensing issue is still alive but only as long as we keep it alive, as I've said once the law has been passed ( A LAW THAT HAS TO BE CHANGED AND HAS BEEN SET IN STONE FOR YEARS AND ANOTHER WHICH WE THE PUBLIC HAVE LOST TO GOVERNMENTS ONCE AGAIN) WE HAVE NO WAY OF GETTING THIS BACK DAVE HAS SAID THAT MILIBAND WILL MEET WITH THE ANGLERS OF THE NORTH EAST BEFORE THE CLOSING DATE FOR THE CONSULTATION OF THE WHITE PAPER . Well I wait with baited breath lets see how soon this will go ahead.

One of the main issues I have asked about is that we must hear all sides of the argument it is obviously right and propper that Miliband will argue his corner with force, that is why I have said we must hear from the opposition parties, I will hold my hands up and be counted if they all come back and say Miliband is right. Davem2005 you have now said more than once that you are totally behind this bill going through so you are as I see it 100% behind Miliband and his right to try and change the law. But like most I will be waiting to see if Milibands arguments to introduce the license is to help the anglers of the future or just to help pay for the wind farms. OH! by the way am I right in saying that these give off electro static energy that could effect the fish stocks as it also effects human beings on land

I STILL BELEIVE THAT THIS HAS TO BE DEBATED MORE BEFORE IT HAS THE FIRST READING IN COMMONS AND WE ALL LOSE THE CHANCE TO TRY TO STOP SOMETHING THAT COULD BE MORALLY AND ETHICALLY WRONG FOR THE ANGLERS, MARINE LIFE, AND OUR FUTURE CHILDREN.
IF YOU WISH ME TO LEAVE THE SITE THEN THAT IS THE RIGHT OF THE ADMINISTRATORS AND SO THIS MAY BE MY LAST WORD ON HERE, BUT I PROMISE I WILL NOT LET THE MATTER GO WITHOUT A TRUE AND JUST CHALLENGE AND WILL CONTINUE THIS THROUGH THE PRESS OR OTHER SITES. IN A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY WE ARE ALL ALLOWED A VOICE AND MY INTENTION IS TO MAKE MINE HEARD

I WOULD LIKE TO FINISH THIS BY SAYING WELL DONE TO GRAHAM SLESSOR WHO STARTED THIS DEBATE BUT HAS SEEMED TO BE PUSHED OUT BY OTHERS, I HOPE THIS ISSUE FINISHES THE WAY THAT YOU INTENDED SLESS AND GOOD LUCK FOR THE FUTURE.

[davem2005]

The debate over this licensing issue is still alive but only as long as we keep it alive, as I've said once the law has been passed ( A LAW THAT HAS TO BE CHANGED AND HAS BEEN SET IN STONE FOR YEARS AND ANOTHER WHICH WE THE PUBLIC HAVE LOST TO GOVERNMENTS ONCE AGAIN) WE HAVE NO WAY OF GETTING THIS BACK DAVE HAS SAID THAT MILIBAND WILL MEET WITH THE ANGLERS OF THE NORTH EAST BEFORE THE CLOSING DATE FOR THE CONSULTATION OF THE WHITE PAPER . Well I wait with baited breath lets see how soon this will go ahead.

One of the main issues I have asked about is that we must hear all sides of the argument it is obviously right and propper that Miliband will argue his corner with force, that is why I have said we must hear from the opposition parties, I will hold my hands up and be counted if they all come back and say Miliband is right. Davem2005 you have now said more than once that you are totally behind this bill going through so you are as I see it 100% behind Miliband and his right to try and change the law. But like most I will be waiting to see if Milibands arguments to introduce the license is to help the anglers of the future or just to help pay for the wind farms. OH! by the way am I right in saying that these give off electro static energy that could effect the fish stocks as it also effects human beings on land

I STILL BELEIVE THAT THIS HAS TO BE DEBATED MORE BEFORE IT HAS THE FIRST READING IN COMMONS AND WE ALL LOSE THE CHANCE TO TRY TO STOP SOMETHING THAT COULD BE MORALLY AND ETHICALLY WRONG FOR THE ANGLERS, MARINE LIFE, AND OUR FUTURE CHILDREN.
IF YOU WISH ME TO LEAVE THE SITE THEN THAT IS THE RIGHT OF THE ADMINISTRATORS AND SO THIS MAY BE MY LAST WORD ON HERE, BUT I PROMISE I WILL NOT LET THE MATTER GO WITHOUT A TRUE AND JUST CHALLENGE AND WILL CONTINUE THIS THROUGH THE PRESS OR OTHER SITES. IN A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY WE ARE ALL ALLOWED A VOICE AND MY INTENTION IS TO MAKE MINE HEARD

I WOULD LIKE TO FINISH THIS BY SAYING WELL DONE TO GRAHAM SLESSOR WHO STARTED THIS DEBATE BUT HAS SEEMED TO BE PUSHED OUT BY OTHERS, I HOPE THIS ISSUE FINISHES THE WAY THAT YOU INTENDED SLESS AND GOOD LUCK FOR THE FUTURE.

Hi Paul,

The marine bill white paper is only a number of suggested changes to the way our fisheries are managed. Something that all parties agree is well overdue. It is issued by DEFRA for comments by stakeholders by the closing date.It is by no means an etched in stone law and can not be made into law until it has been put to the queen in November. It can then be debated in parliament and made into a law.

This is democracy at work where everyone gets a chance to comment before the bill even gets discussed in parliament. Its taken a long time for anglers to be included in this decision making process and this thread is all about getting anglers to respond to Defra with their comments on the white paper.

All the comments on here are not worth anything unless the people reading it take a few minutes to make their opinions known to defra where at this stage it really counts.

I am not 100% in favour of the white paper...I totally object to the introduction of a license unless we can see some improvement before we have to pay and have said so all along. If I ageed with the whole document I would have already sent an email to Defra saying "Great stuff...get on with it" ...but prefer to spend time trying to get others to opose those items that are not popular with anglers. After all its only if enough anglers complain to Defra will we see any changes made.

I would also like to thank Graham Slesser for the initiative he showed in getting this meeting with David Miliband. After the meeting him and I discussed it ( and I think Codonly was involved) and where it should go next. I look forward to David Milibands individual answers to the questions handed to him and will aslo do my best to arrange the promised meetng between him and anglers as per his promise. If at all possible this will take place before the closing date for the consulatation but if not it will definately be before the queens speech to parliament.

Cheers
Dave

[tooly]

Well done lads,I'll be following this thread closely

[Oblickta]

"I will hold my hands up and be counted if they all come back and say
Miliband is right."

Paul, if you read the debate that dave has posted a link to above, you
will see that the opposition welcome and are in favour of the bill and
want it to become statute asap. Bradshaw is quoted as saying, "All the
proposals in the White Paper will, of course, be subject to
consultation".

I'm not a big fan of any political party at the moment and history
teaches us that politicians arn't the most honest people but they all
seem to agree that we need to protect the marine environment and multi
party agreement isn't a common thing so let's all make the most of it.

When I first heard of sea angling licenses my first thought was, "I
haven't smashed up the sea bed and raped it's resourses so why should I
pay to have it repaired?" My thoughts have changed now to, "what will
happen if the bill is blocked and things are allowed to carry on as
they have been?" Like commercial fishermen telling all and sundrie that
the sea is rich and plentyful. Iv'e fished in the north sea from boats
this season for a total of 16 hours at a cost of approx £90 and had one
codling (2.5lb). I have also spoken to a lad who fished 25 times from
charter boats last season and blanked 17 times.

If this white paper making the statute book isn't the answer to what
sea anglers have been asking for, I don't know what is, providing we are represented at all levels and involved in decision making.

Like many others I'm opposed to any charge for fishing in the sea but I
will reconsider if positive changes are in place before they ask me for
money. If not, I'll give up sea fishing and spend my money at fresh water fisheries that manage fish stocks properly

P.S I don't think anyone would want you to leave the site because you
have differing opinions.

[Glenn Kilpatrick]

Hi Oblikta,

I note that although all the opposition are in favour of the marine Bill not all are in favour of the introduction of an angling licence. To name 1 of a few Robert Goodwill the MP for Whitby And Scarborough speaks against the proposed licence and speaks about the potential negative effect it could have for charter skippers and tackle businesses that the licence could bring.

Robert Goodwill MP Says :

I am particularly concerned about those who might occasionally fish, such as when they go on a works outing—I first went on such a trip with other young farmers. If we had had to pay much more than we were already paying that might have put us off. Therefore, recreational fishing might be hit hard.

Although it is possible the licence could be beneficial to anglers it is always worth remembering the opposite could be true. I know some of the local tackle shop and charter boat owners in these parts are very concerned - and rightly so.

I think the marine Bill could be a good thing for all marine life but does it follow that to be able to tell our government our feelings on the management of the sea we have to pay ? surely that cant be right - can it. Plus you should remember that for the past 10 years a group of far more influencial and well informed people have been lobbying the government to protect fish stocks from commercial pressure - The Scientists from ICES have recommeneded zero take for cod for quite some time now but Mr Bradshawe continues to vitoe any of the propasals at the EU level. If he's prepared to pay such disregard in this respect what are the chances of him listening to us ?

The marine Bill could be great for the marine environment and the majority of it should be supported - it will still be the same Bill if you shell out £20 a year or not though. I think we should not be fooled into paying what is an out and out stealth tax.

[PAUL.S.HARRISON.SNR]

To Pay Or Not

DAVEM2005, Again you seem to back track on things you have said, you are saying you are not for it yet in para 1 to me you say Quote"I know where my opinion lies and that is I will pay a sea angling licence IF we get some improvements in our fishing before we have to pay" also in para3 Quote" Personally, I am content for the marine bill to go ahead with the power to create a sea rod license," well maybe its me or I'm a bit thick but you seem as if you are already content to pay for a licence. Let me say that this bill would be good for marine life that some issues are there to be questioned but the main thing we need to get over is that A LAW NEEDS TO BE CHANGED THAT REMOVES OUR RIGHTS ONCE AGAIN and also if they (the government) wish to improve marine life why should the sea anglers have to pay. Do we not pay enough in tax to find funding to help improve marine life. I also would like to say that who said their was full cross party support for this bill was it an opersition M.P. or a Labour one, I know this has nothing to do with fishing but is it not Miliband who is pushing ahead with the dustbin re-cycling and the possability to charge us for what is in the bin, by bugging the bin. I belive the people of this country pay enough in tax and do not need to pay more than once for the same job.
I AM HAPPY TO HAVE BEEN INVITED TO THE WHITBY SITE BY GLENN MEMBERS SHOULD LOOK AT THIS SITE TO SEE THE WAY THEY ARE MOVEING THROUGH THIS ISSUE ON THE MARINE BILL, REMEMBER WE ALL NEED TO BE TOGETHER ON THIS ISSUE, MAYBE SLESS WOULD GO TO A MEETING WITH SOME OF THESE LADS AND REPORT BACK ON THE BEST WAY FORWARD AS A GROUP FROM SHORE FISHING NESA. LETS ALL TALK IN ONE VOICE. PLEASE TAKE A LOOK

http://www.whitbyseaanglers.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,353.0.html

I STILL BELIVE THIS TO BE A WAY TO GET THE FUNDING FOR OFFSHORE WIND FARMS AND WONDER HOW THIS WOULD EFFECT MARINE LIFE.

[treeboa]

to see quotes that the govenment, and in this i mean any govenment will take onboard the thoughts of the people that this and that bill will impact on is total hogwash, vehicle tracking and higher taxation class for 4 wheel drive vehicles are just two issues that the govenment will be bringing in against peoples wishes, vehcle tracking that will charge me for every mile i drive, we already pay possibly the highest price for fuel in the world, most of that goes in tax, then we have the 4 wheel drive levvy, yes they do use more fuel ( hang on aint they already paying for that by the amount of revenue from the fuel they burn) they do damage to roads, so do these people who drive people carriers around as daily transport and only one or two people are in them 95% of the time, many many people have signed petitions to say they dont want this but its all still going ahead DESPITE what the voters of this country want, so to expect a turn around in attitude from the govenment regarding any portion of a white paper sounds a little far fetched, theres an election due soon and your going to be promised anything so that they can stay in power, you only have to look at how fast all the promises they made to gain power failed to materialise once they got in, and no i dont think any other party is any better in this respect, so the queen has to ok it before it goes to law, do you honestly think she will appose anything other than removal of the royal family ??, untill things are done by this and any other govenment that directly impact on the dismal state of our fisheries i for one wont support any part of the bill, there is a fishery protection squadron, it comprises of 4*river class and 2* castle class offshore patrol vessels, 4*hunt class which allthough they provide mine counter measures are still part of the squadron added to this are 14 * p2000 vessels, the royal navy maintains a formal agreement with defra for the protection of fisheries in english, welsh and northern irish waters, yet in 2003/04 they only had a total of 908 patrol days , not a lot when you consider the amount of craft available, with the stocks being ilegally taken from a lot of places it is painfully obvious that these resources are not being used fully, the river class are not small vessels, being 78.5 mtrs long by 13.6 mtrs breadth, they carry 30 crew plus the famous royal marines as boarding parties ( not something for some meddy fisherman to tangle with, nor our own fishermen if fishing in places they should not be, yet the seas - our seas around our coast are still being plundered and raped, perhaps its about time that they were used to full capacity, by the way, the fishery protection squadron is bandied as being the largest front line squadron in the royal navy, if this is the case and this is the best they can provide for fisheries protection, god help us if spain decides to send another amarda

[davem2005]

Paul,
I have never said anything but that the fact I am prepared to pay a sea license if we see something before we are asked to pay as you quoted . This is exactly the question we would have put to David Miliband if he had not made the statement first that we should expect this to be the case.

The second quote attributed to me is actually clearly labelled as a transcript of the comments made by Martin Salter the MP for Reading and the next sentence goes on to say that anglers should expect to see improvements first.

Glenn, there were several mp's who spoke up in support of the marine bill proposal from all parties and it is from this I assume that as an overall proposal the Marine bill has all party support but several MP's voiced opinions on area's of the marine bill that were of concern to their local constituents, including the whitby MPwho made a very good point about the extra costs to charter skippers and also commented about the use of the sea as a carbon capture device (not sure how that works)

As far as I am aware all power generation companies in this country are privately owned enterprises and as such no taxes are used for capital investment. The marine bill goes to great lengths about the modification proposed to the licensing system for such developments as offshore windfarms and dredging operations. These private companies will have to pay a license fee themselves to operate such facilities and the fees will go direct to the government instead of as is currently the case to the crown estates. The proposal is to use some this income to fund the changes proposed in the marine bill white paper, ie the proposed marine management organisation (mmo)

With regard to the fisheries protection vessels; the sfc's are responsible for out to six miles and the navy thereafter. I can only comment on the NE but in the Northumbria region we have 1 patrol vessel and one rib for beach launching. This is not a lot of protection for a fairly long coastline. I can also appreciate your concerns as to the number of days at sea as when you see the figures it makes you wonder what these boats are doing for the rest of the time. After all these boats are a major capital investment and I thought they would be at sea every day. I will dig out the actual figures and post them up . At least that way we can all see an actual figure for what the SFC is doing in terms of protecting our inshore fisheries.

Cheers
Dave.