The following amendments have been selected: amendment 1 in the name of Rebecca Evans, amendment 2 in the name of Darren Millar, amendment 3 in the name of Siân Gwenllian and amendments 4, 5 and 6 in the name of Darren Millar. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendments 2 and 3 will be deselected. If amendment 2 is agreed, amendment 3 is deselected. 

The next item on the agenda this afternoon is the Brexit Party debate on fisheries, and I call on David Rowlands to move the motion—David. 

Motion NDM7243 Caroline Jones 

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Recognises the historic importance of fisheries to Wales.

2. Welcomes the fact that, after years of inaction, the United Kingdom will leave the European Union at the end of this week.

3. Calls upon the Welsh and UK Governments to maximise the benefits to Wales of the Welsh fisheries as we complete the Brexit process.

Motion moved. 

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. At 11 p.m. on 31 January—this coming Friday—the United Kingdom will leave the European Union. We will then move into a transition period, when, it could be said, the real work will begin.

One of the grey areas of discussion will be the situation surrounding fishing in British waters, which, under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, should return to the position of extending to 200 miles from the British coastline. Even the Brexit leader, Nigel Farage, has said that there will be a need for concessions. But that does not mean the type of arrangement outlined by President Macron, which extends the right for European vessels to plunder British waters for another 25 years—[Interruption.] Yes.

I do apologise, I know that the Member is early in his contribution. The 200-mile limit doesn't exist. It only exists tangentially in two places—in a north-westerly direction towards Rockall and south-westerly from the Isles of Scilly. The reason why the 200-mile limit doesn't exist for the UK is because there are other countries in the way. 

Well, I'll accept that, Carwyn. 

Whilst in the EU, the UK could not exercise control over who, and to what extent other nations could fish in UK waters. This led to what could only be called a plundering of the seas around our coasts. The rape of the fish stocks has led to many, once abundant, species being depleted to such an extent that they're close to being unable to replenish their numbers. There's no doubt that a continuation of the common fisheries policy of the European Union would have a disastrous effect on all fishing stocks. An example of this is the granting of licences to mainly Dutch vessels by the EU to use electric stun fishing methods, which are said to be denuding sea beds of their once plentiful crustacean species. 

Leaving the EU and regaining control of British coastal waters offers the UK the chance to re-establish its once thriving fishing industry, which, at one time, employed more than 100,000 people. This transition will not be established overnight and, therefore, it would be pragmatic for the UK to establish a national fisheries council, which could oversee the licensing of foreign vessels to fish British waters in the transition period, whilst we build the infrastructure and fishing capabilities that once existed around the whole of the UK. This could include modern warehousing facilities and fish processing plants. 

The Welsh fishing industry, as it stands, is relatively small economically. Whilst it is true to say that over 90 per cent of the seafood landed by Welsh fishermen is sold to the EU, there's absolutely no evidence to suggest that this trade, worth somewhere around £38 million, should be affected by our leaving the EU. However, should it prove to be so, the very substantial revenue realised by the sale of licences to foreign vessels in the transitional period could be used to subsidise the Welsh fishing industry until adjustments to its fishing practices are made.

Unlike the EU, where most economies are moribund, the far east economies are expanding rapidly. The Welsh fishing industry could exploit these markets where there is huge potential for their premium products. We should note here that the UK Government has categorically stated that it will increase funding for fisheries across the UK nations. Subsidising the Welsh fishing industry will, if you excuse the pun, be small fry compared to the potential for expanding the Welsh fishing industry in the future. 

As we know, fisheries management is a devolved issue, and I acknowledge at this time, it is unclear the extent to which power over fishing responsibilities will remain, or indeed, be devolved to the Welsh Assembly after Brexit. But there is no reason to suggest that the UK Government will not devolve those powers that will be repatriated to the UK Government to Wales as well. We in the Brexit Party will do all that is necessary to support the Welsh Government in retrieving such powers.

In Wales, there exists the potential for significant gains for the fishing industry by leaving the EU and the CFP. This should be seen as a very real opportunity to completely rethink the structure of the UK fishing industry as a whole by transforming where, how and by whom UK fish stocks are exploited. The problem has been that the increasing global populations have intensified the search for food, with fish presenting a seemingly abundant supply and modern technology making it easier to catch huge numbers of them. This has made overfishing and depletion of fish stocks a serious problem. Since its accession to the European Union and its common fisheries policy, this has been particularly true for the UK, which, until now, has been powerless to redress. 

Some 80 per cent of fish caught in UK waters has been caught by non-UK ships according to British Sea Fishing. They have done so in such damaging ways that they have hugely degraded fish stocks and, more worryingly, the ability of several species to regenerate. Vested interests, lobbying and political protection of national interests have taken more from the sea than it can naturally regenerate. Preservationists have lobbied for the reform of EU fishing practices for many years, but largely to no avail. It is time for alternative policies to be explored and pursued. The vote in the referendum of 23 June 2016 was for the UK to leave the European Union. That vote means that the UK will now take back control of many areas that were previously subject to EU regulation and decision making. In particular, it means that the UK will withdraw from the common fisheries policy of the EU, and be free to take independent action to protect fish stocks within its waters, and revitalise a fishing industry that was savagely cut back by the UK's accession to the EU and adoption of its common fisheries policy. 

The UK now has the chance to marry commercial interests with environmental ones, and to implement a fishing policy that will make UK fishing into a profitable and sustainable industry. It can harness the interests of its fishermen to preserve and protect their future livelihood, by giving them an ownership stake in the fish that swim our waters. It can learn from the successful policies that have been put into effect in other countries—policies that have seen fish stocks return to their normal levels; the creation of a maritime research institute tasked with monitoring fish stocks, examining the levels of different species, mapping breeding grounds and recording all catches made within UK waters; the creation of a national fisheries council to determine a total allowable catch for each species and to assign a quota to each registered fishing vessel that is divisible and tradeable, where all catches must be landed and if any exceed the quota, the vessel must trade or buy quotas from others; where all boats are fitted with satellite tracking devices, and their position is constantly indexed; where all catches' size and species are recorded on landing, with information uploaded to a public database—only really possible if fish stocks caught in British waters are landed at British ports; where UK fishing waters are divided into administrative zones, with the national fisheries council able to impose an immediate suspension of fishing in any areas where the sustainability of any fish stocks appears to be at risk; where there are inspections from the national fisheries council on any fishing vessel over a certain tonnage, twice each year; and where the national fisheries council and the maritime research council publish all their information online, accessible to members of the public, as well as to industry. 

If these policies and structures are put in place, they have the potential to totally revitalise the Welsh fishing industry and reverse the decline we have witnessed over many decades. Thank you. 

Thank you.

I have selected the six amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendments 2 and 3 will be deselected. And if amendment 2 is agreed, amendment 3 will be deselected. Can I ask the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs to move formally amendment 1, tabled in the name of Rebecca Evans?

Amendment 1—Rebecca Evans

Delete all and replace with:

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Recognises the historic importance of fisheries to Welsh coastal communities, industries and environment.

2. Calls upon the Welsh Government and UK Government to take all necessary steps to secure the future of Wales’s fisheries.

Amendment 1 moved.

Formally. 

Thank you. I call on Andrew R.T. Davies to move amendments 2, 4, 5 and 6, tabled in the name of Darren Millar. 

Amendment 2—Darren Millar

Delete point 2.

Amendment 4—Darren Millar

Add as new point at end of motion:

Recognises that, upon leaving the EU, we will leave the Common Fisheries Policy and become an independent coastal state, taking back control of our waters in December 2020.

Amendment 5—Darren Millar

Add as new point at end of motion:

Welcomes the UK Government’s commitment to; increase funding for fisheries across the UK’s nations throughout the current parliament, and support the regeneration of our coastal communities.

Amendment 6—Darren Millar

Add as new point at end motion:

Calls on the Welsh Government to introduce a new fishing strategy which would be based on the principle of ‘maximum sustainable yield’, and would legally require the Welsh Government to maintain fish sustainability for every stock.

Amendments 2, 4, 5 and 6 moved.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate this afternoon and also to move the amendments in the name of Darren Millar on behalf of the Conservative group. 

Actually, looking at the main motion, it's almost difficult to disagree with the sentiments in it and, obviously, hopefully our later amendments do add to the motion and point to the actions today in Westminster, for example, of the introduction of the UK Fisheries Bill, the first piece of UK-specific legislation on fisheries in 45 years.

Amendment 2 seeks to, obviously, delete point 2 of the motion on the basis that it talks of the inaction. I think in fairness to the UK Government, it tried darned hard for three years to try and get us out of the European Union and respect the referendum result. In the absence of that word 'inaction' we could have supported the motion unamended, but that's why amendment 2 is down, and I hope that the Brexit Party understand why that amendment has been put down, being that we're the governing party in Westminster.

Amendment 4 talks about us leaving the European Union on Friday. As the opener of the motion highlighted and, as we had in an earlier debate highlighting what will happen on Friday at 11 o'clock, obviously, leaving the common fisheries policy and becoming an independent coastal state. This is self-evident of the referendum result of 2016. And I do draw Members' attention to the introduction today of the UK Fisheries Bill and the measures contained within that Fisheries Bill that talk of, obviously, creating a sustainable fishing industry that will have strict rules on catches and the way that it will be governed, the way ships will be registered, and the way those catches will be landed here in England, obviously, because I appreciate this particular Bill is England-only with some devolved concepts attached to it of general content.

I'd welcome the Minister's view on her take on the UK Fisheries Bill as introduced and what discussion her officials might have had, because within the Bill's provisions it does talk about sustainable fishing underpinning the requirement of the UK Government and the devolved Governments to publish a joint fisheries statement to co-ordinate fisheries management where appropriate, and the fisheries management plans to achieve sustainable fishing stocks. So, I'd be most appreciative to try and understand from the Minister what input she has had, or her officials have had, in devising that protocol that the Bill talks about.

Amendment 5 also talks about the increased opportunities from fisheries across the UK and, in particular, the way that the Conservative manifesto, endorsed at the general election of 2019, highlighted clear commitments on behalf of coastal and fishing communities, and in particular when it came to financial support and, indeed, more structural support going into those communities. Again, I emphasise that there is a cross-over between devolved responsibilities when it comes to Wales and the UK responsibilities, but instead of looking at this as an obstacle, we should be looking at this as an opportunity, because I genuinely can't think of anyone who can point to the common fisheries policy as being a positive regime that has enhanced the fishing capabilities of the United Kingdom and the coastal communities of the United Kingdom.  

It is really important that we do hopefully hear from the Minister today, as amendment 6 talks about, about the new fishing strategies that could potentially come forward that are based on the sustainable management of our fisheries and, indeed, our marine wildlife and our marine areas. I do hope that when the Minister puts the Government proposition to us, she will highlight to us what progress the Government is making in preparing its own fishing Bill, which I appreciate, given the legislative constraints at the moment on time, is highly unlikely to come before us before the Assembly elections of 2021. But I would like to think that officials are working up the proposals on how, as the UK Fisheries Bill highlights, fish don't respect borders; they obviously live in the oceans and they transfer around the coastal communities. It is vital that there is joined-up thinking between Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland and, indeed, with our friends and colleagues on the continent of Europe, that we do make sure that we have a managed and sustainable policy going forward.

But instead of looking at this as a backward retrograde step, as some Members in the Chamber would look at it, I think on reading the UK Fisheries Bill today we can see the positives that will come after Friday's leaving of the European Union, and a reversal in the decline of the fishing industry here, not just in Wales but across the rest of the UK, with the opportunities that we as policy makers can engage with and put those things in place that, sadly, many coastal communities have been lacking for the 45 years and the duration of the common fisheries policy.

So, I hope our amendments will find favour tonight and add to the motion that the Brexit Party have put down today. Ultimately I call, similar to the call of the leader of the Brexit Party, on the Government to withdraw their wrecking amendment, which is a delete-all amendment again. I fail to see how you can delete all of a motion that is pretty understanding in what it's saying about a self-evident act that's going to happen on Friday, and what that will entail for us here as policy makers and, indeed, coastal communities and fishing communities the length and breadth of the UK. Instead of looking at this as a hindrance, we should look at it as an opportunity, and that's why I very much hope people will support our amendments, and indeed support the motion as it goes forward.  

Can I call on Llyr Gruffydd to move amendment 3, tabled in the name of Siân Gwenllian?

Amendment 3—Siân Gwenllian

Delete point 2 and replace with:

Recognises the significant importance of the European Union as a destination for Welsh seafood produce and seeks to ensure that this market remains open and easily accessible in the future.

Calls for the UK Government's forthcoming fisheries bill to ensure that UK and devolved legislation delivers truly sustainable and accountable fisheries management that minimises the impact on the marine environment and supports dependent coastal communities.

Amendment 3 moved.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer, for the opportunity to speak to the Plaid Cymru amendment and on the motion more broadly. There are three clauses to the original motion, and there are two of them that I would have no problem with, along the lines suggested earlier. There are some quite obvious statements: recognising the historic importance of fisheries in Wales in the first section, and then calling on the Governments to ensure the best for Wales as the Brexit process is completed. The one section that I'm not comfortable with is the second, which welcomes the fact that we will leave the European Union. It will be no surprise to anyone that I don't welcome the fact that we're leaving. I do accept that we're leaving, of course, but I don't think that it's a cause for celebration, certainly not from my perspective. So, Plaid Cymru wishes to delete that second point, but we also want to add a few more.

First of all, that me recognise the significant importance of the European Union as a destination for Welsh seafood produce, and that we want to ensure that that market continues to be open and is easily accessible in the future. Now, we know, of course, and we have heard in hearing the opening of this debate, the value of the fish sector and the shellfish sector particularly. We export over 90 per cent of that produce, and much of it to the European Union, and Welsh fisheries, aquaculture producers, and seafood producer supply chains are particularly open and vulnerable to damage as the result of any barriers to the export of their produce, be they tariffs or other barriers. I will quote what James Wilson from Bangor Mussel Producers said—I'm sure many of you will know him—he said a few months ago, and I quote from an article:

'There's a wagon waiting on the quayside when we land. We take the mussels off the boat and they're put in the wagon, the wagon drives away. And then it's a 16 to 18-hour transit time from north Wales to northern France or the south of Holland. If they order from me on a Monday, then they expect the wagon to arrive on a Tuesday because they want to...sell them on a Wednesday. It’s that seamless. Anything that introduces delay or uncertainty or whatever you call it in that process becomes an issue in terms of the supply chain. That’s not just a small problem.'

Therefore, the importance of the first section of the Plaid Cymru amendment is clear: that we want to keep those channels as open and as seamless as possible.

The second section then calls for the UK Fisheries Bill to ensure that any devolved legislation delivers truly sustainable and accountable fisheries management, and minimises the impact on the marine environment, while also supporting dependent coastal communities. I think that striking that balance is extremely important, because the best way of ensuring the sustainability of these communities who are reliant on fisheries is to ensure the sustainability of the fisheries themselves, and the sustainability of the marine environment. As we've heard, the UK Government's Fisheries Bill has been laid today. I haven't had an opportunity to read it as yet, and therefore I don't express a view at this point, except to say that it is important that we do ensure the sustainability of those fisheries, and that we need to go further than simply doing that. We need to be clear that there should be guarantees of funding previously received from the European Union for research and innovation as we move forward on this journey, because that is at the heart of ensuring the resilience and flexibility of the sector for these uncertain years that we may be facing.

But the other important element, of course, that has to be a central part of this discussion is: where is the Welsh voice in those negotiations? Where is the Welsh voice and how will the Welsh voice be heard? Michael Gove yesterday, on his visit, failed to commit to a formal role for Wales in negotiations and that is a cause of concern. It’s important that we bear in mind the very different nature of the fisheries sector here in Wales. So, our expectations and requirements may be very different to those of other parts of the UK, and it’s only fair that those are expressed and heard in the same way. So, there is an important role, not only for the UK Government, but also for the Welsh Government, in ensuring that the voice and interests of Welsh fishing communities are prominent in the important negotiations before us.

This debate today is very important. As Members, we will know that the UK Government has today released the Fisheries Bill, stating that it ensures sustainable and climate-smart fishing post-Brexit. I welcome the UK Bill making it clear that EU vessels will no longer have automatic access to UK fishing waters as the opportunities that will be available for Welsh fishermen and women will be very significant.

The last 40 plus years have seen a plundering of our seas through the common fisheries policy and the devastation of fish stocks, which will take many, many years for us to begin to correct in this country. By taking back control of our coastal waters and further regions of the sea, we will have the opportunity not only to develop a massive economic resource for Wales, but also to improve conservation in Welsh waters.

This morning, I read an interesting article on BBC Wales's news website covering the news story of a Welsh fisherman from Pembrokeshire who voted to leave. He said,

'Foreign trawlers take tonnes of fish without landing their catch locally'—[Interruption.].

Was that indigenous trawlers? Right.

He said—[Interruption.]. How can I concentrate when you're talking? I'm sorry. He said,

'Foreign trawlers take tonnes of fish without landing their catch locally meaning they don't bring any business to Welsh ports'.

He also said, and I quote,

'We don't make no money out of it'.

Learning from the concerns of those who are affected the most should be at the heart of this debate moving forward. Before this debate, I did read over the Assembly Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee report on the UK Fisheries Bill 2019, and I commend the committee's recommendations in the report on Welsh fisheries and look forward to an update on that.

I've kept my contribution short today, as I believe my other group members and other people will have covered a lot of the opportunities available post Brexit. It is important that we here at the Senedd do not allow the UK Government to negotiate away our fisheries in any trade deal. Thank you.

Well, we'll soon see what the reality of, 'Taking back control of our waters' looks like. Will Britain rule the waves or will Boris Johnson sell UK fisheries down the river, using them as a bargaining chip in the upcoming trade negotiations? Several EU politicians have made clear their intentions: they want British access to EU financial service markets predicated on access to UK waters. Given that fishing and aquaculture's gross value added contribution to the UK economy is 0.04 per cent, whereas financial services and insurance's contribution is 7.1 per cent, I'll let you do the maths for yourself.

I fear that, as one Brexit Party MEP put it last week, 'Britain's fish may indeed be punished for their Brexit stance'. But, we'll see. But what we do know is that, overall, the UK currently imports 70 per cent of the fish that we eat and we export 80 per cent of what we catch. I think that we can all agree that, in terms of sustainability, it would be better to consume more of what we catch here and redress the imbalance in the long term, but the fact is maintaining access to EU markets is critical.

Take shellfish for example: more than 80 per cent of the shellfish, lobsters, crabs and langoustines we catch are sold to the EU—mostly France and Spain. It accounts for more than a quarter of all UK fish exports by value. Two things, then, will happen: you will have to, if you're exporting, do that according to the EU rules. If you want to export to a country, you can only do it according to their rules of acceptance. The other thing that will also apply is that if there are any border hold-ups, and Llyr already mentioned that, that doesn't see delivery of fresh goods in a timely fashion, they won't be going anywhere. So, I'm sure that the Brexit Party know all this, and it was probably covered in the one fisheries committee meeting that Nigel Farage, the fisherman's friend, attended in the three years that he was a member. One meeting in three years. Absolutely disgraceful.

When our own environment committee looked at this two years ago, we emphasised the need for a new relationship between the constituent nations of the UK after Brexit, and that is particularly true for fisheries management. Otherwise, there is a risk, and I'm quoting from that report,

'that one of the most pervasive negative perceptions of EU membership and fisheries—that some countries benefit from an unfairly inflated allocation of quota—will be transposed to the UK.'

We're already hearing it today. Isn't that amazing? But, then, maybe you'll take notice more often than Nigel Farage, who only managed one meeting. But at least you did read the papers, I suppose.

The other question is whether, post Brexit, we move towards extending the principle of payment for public goods to our seas, and, again, that's been mentioned. And I think that that is probably the most important thing that we need to do here, because most people who fish in Wales at the moment to do so from very small craft. It is essential for those, if they are going to grow in any way, that the sea that they are hoping to find their produce in is actually up to a really, really good standard. So, the environmental principles would be absolutely critical for those to survive, as will the marine conservation zones that protect some of those areas.

So, I think those are the things that we can do. I look forward to your response, Minister.

Joyce Watson there chastises Nigel Farage for only attending one European Union fisheries committee. He's done something rather more valuable for fishermen by getting us out of the EU and them out of the CFP.

I thank Andrew R.T. Davies and Llyr Gruffydd for their generous comments about our motion. I only express my disappointment they won't be supporting it, in light of them. I think Andrew R.T. was right, perhaps, to draw attention to that 'years of inaction' reference. Perhaps we did have Theresa May in mind while saying it, and he's now reinventing Theresa May's period in charge as one of dynamic action.

I'm more surprised the Welsh Government seems to take exception to this point too, since I thought the years of inaction on Brexit were their policy until their hand was forced by the Lib Dems and the SNP into the election.

More broadly, I'm disappointed again that Welsh Government are taking their 'delete and replace all' approach, but particularly when having deleted all, they then actually put back quite a lot of various people's motion, often in the same words, for lines on end, which I think is taking the Table Office's good officers rather for granted on that front.

However, on the changes they have made, we think their point 1 is just a little churlish. We recognise the 'importance of fisheries to Wales', but they won't have that, and they're only important to these particular parts of Wales.

And then on our final point, I just don't understand why they take exception to it all. We call upon 'the Welsh and UK Governments', and, apparently, we haven't quite got the syntax right or treated Welsh Government with sufficient respect and formality. They say we should instead call upon 'the Welsh Government and UK Government'.

But nonetheless, we will proceed with our motion and thank again Plaid for their amendments, which, as with everything they seem to be saying on Brexit this week, have been very constructive, and I really do commend them on the approach they are taking.

I agree with the first paragraph of their amendment about the importance of the European Union as a destination for fish, and particularly the molluscs and seafood that they talked about this evening, and I think it's a fair point, but I wouldn't over-emphasise it, because the point cuts both ways. The European Union is very dependent on our fish, and were it not for buying the fish from us, it would be an enormous challenge for them, and one I'm sceptical that they would take on, of seeking to buy those same products from elsewhere. And I think, were they to seek to do that, they would pay significantly more with the tariffs in addition, but also I think to get the food as fresh, and the example Llyr gave of molluscs in France and Spain, given where those molluscs come to life and grow, I just don't see where they would, cost-effectively, with that level of freshness, be able to obtain the produce satisfactorily elsewhere.

The Plaid amendment also mentions the Fisheries Bill, which rather than being forthcoming, has now been published. And I apologise to the Chamber, on the account of commitments here and elsewhere, I have not yet been able to read and digest that Bill. But I look forward to doing so, and hope it bears out Plaid's very sensible objectives and hopes for it.

Perhaps the most important amendment I think is point 4 from the Conservatives, and I think this is really important, because under Theresa May I felt, and I think actually many Conservatives also felt, there was a great deal of shilly-shallying on this point that should have been absolutely clear—that when we leave the EU we become an independent coastal state with all that implies. And any suggestion that that would have been traded off in a withdrawal agreement or political declaration, or even now that it might not be the case because of a future trade agreement, is wrong. We will be an independent coastal state—. I give way to Andrew R.T.

The point that the leader of the Brexit Party is making is emphasised in law now. If the Bill goes through the House of Commons, the Fisheries Bill makes that point and makes it a legal point. So, it's not something that can be easily traded away.

The Member is absolutely correct and I commend him and his party in Government on what they have now done in this area. 

Amendment 5 we also support, and amendment 6—the maximum sustainable yield. I think that approach seems to have quite a broad consensus of—. So, that's why I was a little surprised with Huw Irranca's intervention earlier. I wasn't quite sure why he left, because I thought Darren was agreeing with him, in terms of that being a sensible approach, and I don't necessarily have his level of understanding, but I hope that we will be able to come together behind that.

So, I'll make two very short final points. It's really important, on fishing in this withdrawal, that we get rid of all this Factortame litigation. And the idea that the ECJ used that case for the first time to have the direct effect of EU law specifically overturning a UK statute, in that case the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, was so wrong and I'm so glad we're going to be out of that.

And finally, all the best to the Minister, in terms of our fishery protection vessels. I was honoured, when I was chairing the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs committee to go to Cardigan bay and to see those new vessels in operation. I wish her well in her duties in overseeing them.

I rise as somebody who had six years as a fisheries Minister, and who agrees wholeheartedly that the common fisheries policy is a disaster. It's encouraged over-fishing, encouraged mechanised forms of fishing that have literally dredged sea beds of their life and is still a problem now. So, I shed no tears for the common fisheries policy, but I think it is important that we are realistic about what can be delivered here.

Britain's fisheries began their decline many, many, many decades ago, and by the 1960s most of the fisheries were dead, long before we entered the European Union. And I do caution Members who suggest that somehow those stocks can suddenly bounce back overnight; they clearly won't be able to do that. We were as guilty of over-fishing as the EU has been with the common fisheries policy. 

Secondly, I think it's again worth emphasising that the 200-mile zone, which I asked David Rowlands about, doesn't actually exist, in the main, for the UK around these islands. Ireland is 80 miles away from Wales. So, clearly, there's not a 200-mile zone around the UK in the western part, otherwise the whole of Ireland would be included in it, and it's the same in most of the North sea. And it does mean, of course, that not only does there have to be fisheries management between the four nations of the UK, but if we take the Irish sea, as an example, there has to be joint management with the EU. Otherwise, the management of the fisheries doesn't work, because fish, as Andrew R.T. Davies has rightly said, will swim back and forth over the boundaries. So, we still will need co-operation with the EU in the future. 

Clearly, it is the 200-mile or median line limit, and some fish will cross over borders. But isn't it the case, actually, that the majority of fish stocks do not?

But there is no 200-mile—it doesn't exist as far as the UK is concerned. How can it? You've got Ireland on one side; you have the Scandinavian countries on the other; France is 20 miles away from the UK. So, the 200-mile limit exists as part of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea from 1982, but only if there's no other country in the way, and the UK is hemmed in. And, of course, the problem that that creates as well is that, while it's correct to say that other fishing vessels might not be able to access UK waters, it also means that UK fishing vessels will now not be able to access any of the waters within the EU, including most of the Irish sea, because most of that will be controlled by the EU because it's within the Republic of Ireland's territorial waters. So, it will be absolutely crucial that there's joint management of fisheries in the future. 

The stocks will not recover overnight; I think that's fairly clear. If we look at the Grand Banks as an example, decades is what it would take for those stocks to recover, the cod stocks that were once so plentiful. And so, I am worried that the fishing industry will think that, suddenly, overnight, things will go back to what they used to be. That will not happen. A lot of our processes, particularly if we look at Grimsby, and the story about Grimsby last week, rely on imported fish to be able to process. If they don't get access to those fish, they cannot process. Now, it may be that they can substitute in the longer term, but they can't substitute in the shorter term for not being able to access those fish. 

If we look at Welsh fisheries, 90 per cent of our fish is exported. It's not in our interest to export further than Europe, because it's fish at the end of the day, and if you're going to export fresh fish, there is a limit to how far you can take it. It's not just tariffs that are a problem, it is delay. Any kind of delay, obviously with fish, means that you end up with a lorry full of fish that's gone off and no use to anybody. And the reality is that the Welsh fishing industry would collapse without having the same kind of access time-wise to the European market as it does now, quite simply because a lot of people in Britain don't eat the fish that's exported—razor clams are one example; it's very rarely you'll see those for sale in Wales, but it's a very big fishery as far as the Spanish market is concerned. 

So, we do need to approach this with a dose of reality. I entirely agree with the need for sustainable fisheries management, but I do think there will be pressure from some in the fishing community to move to something that is unsustainable because it can now be done more easily. I'd certainly caution all Ministers in the UK against going down that line, and, again, emphasise that having access to the European market is absolutely crucial to our fishing industry in Wales. And let's not raise expectations that can't be met. Yes, of course, let's promote our fisheries; let's of course promote sustainability in our fisheries, but let's of course be real. The decline started many, many decades before we entered the EU, and let's be careful about what we say to people in our fishing communities so that their expectations are not raised unrealistically, and, of course, they become angry as a result. 

Thank you. Can I now call the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs, Lesley Griffiths?

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Wales's fisheries have shaped our identity and our communities over centuries. Yet, today, many of our coastal communities fear this generation will be the last to know these traditions and industries that have sustained our communities and attracted so many visitors. Their concerns are not just the threat of a chaotic and uncertain Tory Brexit. These concerns also reflect the steady decline they've witnessed in the marine life on which their livelihoods rely. To reduce the historical and future importance of fisheries to a simplistic posture on Brexit would be a disservice to our communities and their concerns. That is why I hope all parties will support the Welsh Government's amendment, which calls not just for a particular position to be taken on Brexit, but for the UK and Welsh Governments to take all steps necessary to protect our coastal communities and industries, and the environment on which our well-being relies.

Last year, I published 'Brexit and our Seas', a consultation to start the conversation about how we manage our fisheries once we are no longer part of the EU common fisheries policy. I will make a further statement on the consultation response and our next steps later this term. However, the next steps the UK Government need to take are very clear. They must secure the access to EU markets to allow the vital relationships to continue between businesses in Wales and their trusted partners across Europe. They must secure access to EU life, to the INTERREG programme with Ireland, and to the other programmes which enable Governments and civil society across Europe to collaborate for the benefit of our shared environment.

Without strengthening the protection of the marine environment and averting the worst impacts of climate change, there will be no industries. I agree with the sentiment expressed in the Plaid Cymru amendment, but I believe we need to go further. I know Plaid Cymru Members have a much broader interest in our marine environment than fisheries alone. I've had regular correspondence and discussion with Members about wider co-operation with our European partners and improving the evidence base to support improved management of marine biodiversity. Securing this vital and wide-ranging co-operation with our European neighbours is not a matter of meaningless statements about control of the kind we see in the Tory amendment. There is only one ocean, and marine biodiversity cannot be managed simply by drawing a line on a map. It requires long-term cooperation and negotiation, not soundbites about the control of one side or another.

I was also surprised to see the Tories' amendment regarding increased funding from the UK Government for fisheries. It seems they've forgotten about devolution, and that, in Wales, we make our own funding decisions in those areas for which this Senedd is responsible. Let the opposition, by all means, echo our calls for a definitive end to austerity and a significant uplift in our Barnett share of public spending. But do they really want to argue against the ability of this Senedd to decide on budget allocations within devolved competence? The most surprising amendment from the Tories, however, was for a legal duty on Welsh Government to guarantee fish stocks. We see the UK Fisheries Bill, published today by their party, contains no such legal duty. Members can draw their own conclusions about the seriousness with which the Tories in Westminster take their advice from their Welsh colleagues. We cannot legally guarantee fish stocks any more than we can legally guarantee sea level rises. Our actions must be collaborative actions with other nations in Europe and around the world for those commitments to be realised.

There is, however, much we can do and do as a Welsh Government, regardless of the outcome of the Brexit process, in order for Wales's fisheries to thrive into the future. In recent years, as part of the European Union, we secured protected status for a whole series of foods from Welsh fisheries, putting them rightly on a par with the very finest foods in the world—Conwy mussels, Welsh laverbread, Halen Môn salt, and coracle-caught salmon and sewin. Their protected status gives recognition to the incredible skills of the producers of these foods—in many cases, skills that have been handed down and mastered over generations. But, of course, that protected status also relies on the quality of the marine environment and our ability to look after it. Whilst foods with protected status are only one example of the value of Welsh fisheries, they perfectly capture the steps we need to take as a Welsh Government to enable our fisheries to thrive: that is, we must invest in the people whose skill and commitment sustains our industries, and we must look after the environment on which those industries and the well-being of our communities rely. Welsh Government must support the seafood and aquaculture sectors to develop new skills and new relationships, so more people can enjoy the world-class produce they offer. And our Welsh seafood cluster initiative does exactly that. The Welsh Government support for the Welsh food and drink sector saw its growth exceed all expectations, reaching more than £7.4 billion a year ahead of target. The steps we will take are designed to support Welsh fisheries to make an even bigger contribution to this remarkable growth.

Welsh Government must also ensure all activities in Welsh waters are properly regulated and co-ordinated so that we protect marine biodiversity and halt the decline that is threatening the future of Welsh fisheries. Our marine plan and marine evidence strategy, both published last year, show how we as a Welsh Government can absolutely support that. We need better evidence and better enforcement, and that is why we've made substantial new investments in these areas to better preserve our seas for our historic industries and future generations. I hope our coastal communities and the many people in Wales who identify themselves with Welsh fisheries, whatever their views of Brexit, will see from today's debate that, right across the Senedd, we are prepared to take all steps necessary to secure their future.

Thank you. Can I call David Rowlands to reply to the debate?

Diolch, Llywydd. Can I thank all the Members for their contributions? I'll very briefly mention some of them. Andrew R.T. Davies spoke of the UK Fisheries Bill, which is to be welcomed, obviously, and he noted the possibility of implementing sustainable fishing policies and emphasised the opportunities that can now be available to us across the whole of the UK.

Llyr Gruffydd understandably mentioned the fact that he wanted item 2 deleted, because, obviously, that goes against the principles of Plaid Cymru, and I quite understand that. He says that it's important to ensure the market for Welsh fish products remains in the EU, and I can't disagree with that at all. And there's no reason why those channels are not kept open. Llyr also mentioned that we must have a guarantee of funding for the Welsh fishing industry, and I wholeheartedly support him, and our party would support any moves that are necessary to make sure that that happens. You also mentioned, Llyr, that we need to have a voice—the Welsh need to have a voice in all the negotiations, and fully agree with you.

Mandy Jones mentioned the Pembrokeshire farmer who told of the damaging effect of non-indigenous fishing vessels to his business. And Joyce Watson, quite understandably, spoke of her reservations over what might happen, and she mentioned that the fishing industry now is only 0.04 per cent of the GDP, but the whole idea of this is that that should be expanded greatly and we should be something like 20 per cent of the GDP. And she spoke of the imports coming into this country, which is 70 per cent, fish imports coming into this country, but the truth of the matter, of course, is that they're coming from countries where their ships have actually fished those fish out of British waters and they're importing them to us.

Mark Reckless obviously has pointed out the constructive approach that we're using for this debate. Carwyn Jones says he sheds no tears for the CAP and he said that the British fishing industry has been in decline probably for centuries. He's absolutely right, but, at the time that we went into the European Union, there were still 100,000 people working in the fishing industry in the United Kingdom. And he's quite right, of course, to say that stocks will not be replenished in the short term. It will take some time to do that. But it's so very important that we now have the opportunity to make sure that those stocks are not being plundered on the scale that they have been in the past. And I point out to him, when he says, with regard to that it's not been 100 or 200 miles, that we will still be able to fish those areas around the British Isles that we have not been able to fish exclusively whilst we were in the European Union. Incidentally, British vessels were barred from fishing in the Mediterranean, and that's something most people don't know.

The Minister mentioned the fishermen's worries, and we can quite understand that—they will have worries—but we have the assurances from the British Government that they will be funding them to an extent that will make sure that they do not have any fundamental money worries. But you failed to mention that the Welsh fishing industry has been in drastic decline since we joined the EU and this is a real opportunity for us to build that industry back to where it was before. We in Brexit agree with the Minister's comment with regard to keeping all channels open to the EU. That's absolutely essential, and that's what we need to do, and I'm pretty certain that that's what will happen.

So, I thank you all for your contributions, and, Dirprwy Lywydd, we place this debate before the Chamber at a time when it will be possible to take back control of the UK fishing grounds. It is a motion that should have the support of all in this Chamber, because all it seeks to do is point out the powers we should now have to revitalise the Welsh fishing industry. Indeed, Llywydd, there is nothing in the other parties' amendments that contradicts the arguments I have put forward in this motion. I therefore urge those on the other benches to forget party politics in favour of the Welsh fishing industry and vote for this very reasonable motion.

Thank you. The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we will defer voting under this item until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.