Andrew
George: The Minister’s arguments are becoming
inconsistent. Earlier he told us that by making a decision here today
and not waiting for Report to make the amendments, the industry could
make commercial and investment decisions over the summer that would not
be possible if we waited and withdrew the current amendments. Now he is
saying that it will take all summer to negotiate a lot of the other
conditions attached to the orders that back up the amendments. Surely
these things can be negotiated simultaneously over the summer. Given
the clear concern in the industry at present, surely the Minister must
accept that his argument about making commercial and investment
decisions over the summer does not stand. We can come back and consider
everything together in a co-ordinated fashion on
Report.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that
intervention, but he might have misunderstood me, which might be my
fault. We have the opportunity to send a clear signal based on the long
and arduous discussions that we have had over quite some time. Over the
summer, we should get on with fleshing out the detail of how we put the
process into practice, not looking at revisiting amendments. Frankly,
what is in front of us is based on the principles that many of those
involved have been calling for. This is a very good set of amendments.
We can delay and see if we can come back with something else, but I say
to the hon. Gentleman seriously, if we substantially alter the
amendments, one or other grouping will walk away from the table. I
appreciate the lateness of seeing the detail, but the amendments are on
areas where there has been consistent agreement on what needs to be
done. We have the opportunity to signal today that we are now minded to
deliver on this issue and to get on with the notes and
guidance.
Mr.
Benyon: While I respect the Minister’s desire to
proceed, I still have not got an answer on the time scale and why it is
different. If he can give an assurance that the industry’s
concerns will be listened to this summer,
and that, if those concerns are valid, he will introduce amendments on
Report, I will go quietly. I do not think that this is a good way of
doing business. There has been fantastic consultation on the Bill with
a range of organisations, none of which will be entirely happy, but
most of which will be content. The issue under discussion is an
exception, because a key coastal industry feels left out. If the
Minister gives an assurance that, if the amendments are made, a proper
consultation will take place, and that valid concerns that can be
accommodated on Report will be listened to, I will go along with
him.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: That is a good suggestion. The whole
thrust of the Committee has been to listen solidly to opinions. I can
honestly say that the provisions, even if they are analysed over the
summer, will be shown to be right. I hear what the hon. Members for
Newbury and for St. Ives have said; we need to discuss how we will
implement the provisions with the industry. I do not think that we will
get a set of amendments that will satisfy everybody—that is the
history of the issue—but if, during the summer, the amendments
are suddenly shown to be defective, I will not close my mind to
revisiting them. However, I am 99.99 per cent. certain that they are
right. We
all need to engage with the industry and implement the solution to the
impasse that is on offer. We will then consult properly over the
summer. I hope that the hon. Member for Newbury will engage with that
and recognise that we are balancing the issues of a highly viable
future for shellfisheries—although, without the several and
regulating orders, their future is terribly uncertain at the
moment—with the absolute necessity to have due regard to the
Crown Estates and their powers.
Amendment
56 agreed to.
Amendments
made: 57, in
clause 197, page 124, line 14, at
end insert— ‘(1B) Omit
subsection (4) (certain consents required for orders made in relation
to land belonging to Crown
etc).’. This
amendment would remove the need for an order made under section 1 of
the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967 to have the consent of the Crown
Estate Commissioners or representatives of the Duchy of Cornwall or the
Duchy of Lancaster before it can be
made. Amendment
58, in
clause 197, page 124, line 14, at
end insert— ‘( ) In Schedule
1 to that Act (provisions with respect to making of orders under
section 1), in paragraph
6— (a) the existing
provision is renumbered as sub-paragraph (1),
and (b) after that
sub-paragraph
insert— “(2)
Where the proposed order relates to any portion of the sea shore
belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Crown, the appropriate
Minister shall also have regard to the powers and duties of the Crown
Estate Commissioners under the Crown Estate Act
1961.”’. This
amendment would require the appropriate Minister, when considering an
application for a several or regulating order, to have regard to the
powers and duties of the Crown Estate Commissioners under the Crown
Estate Act 1961.—(Huw
Irranca-Davies.) Clause
197, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clauses
198 to 220 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
221Byelaws:
compensation Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Martin
Salter (Reading, West) (Lab): Very good chairing,
Mr. Gale, and frighteningly quick. Clause 221 amends section
212 of the Water Resources Act 1991. I have been persuaded not to table
an amendment to the clause. I am not having second thoughts, but I am
slightly queasy having looked at the issue again. Section
212 of the 1991 Act gives fishery owners who are affected by certain
byelaw changes the right to claim compensation. That is clearly
outdated. Sea fishermen have no right to claim compensation if a
decision on quotas is made for sound conservation reasons. Why on earth
should owners of inland fisheries, such as a put-and-take rainbow trout
fishery in which the hon. Member for Broxbourne might recreate with his
fishing rod, be able to claim compensation if such a decision is made
by the Environment Agency or other competent body for good scientific,
environmental or ecological reasons?
Clause
221(2), which amends the Water Resources Act 1991,
states: “In
subsection (1), for the words from ‘the claim’ to the end
substitute ‘the
Agency”— meaning
the Environment
Agency— “may
pay that person such amount by way of compensation as it considers
appropriate.’” However,
I would rather delete the subsection altogether. The Joint Committee
considered evidence that led us to conclude that there are times when
the Environment Agency is nervous about making the right byelaws, or
taking the right decision for fisheries and the environment, because of
the threat of compensation. What I want to know from the Minister is
exactly how the phrase “as it considers appropriate” will
be interpreted. If “appropriate” means a big fat zero,
that is very appropriate from where I stand, as there needs to be a
level playing field. If the word “appropriate” is going
to continue to raise doubts in the minds of officials, particularly in
the EA—I have praised them this morning, but they can be
risk-averse at times—and if it will hinder them from taking
decisions that will benefit the environment, I remain
concerned. 4.45
pm Mr.
Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con): The hon. Gentleman will
recall the spring salmon conservation measures that the EA introduced
to protect scarce spring runs on many rivers in England and Wales. A
number of fishery owners and fishermen were very nervous about those
conservation measures, but by and large the measures have been hugely
successful. They have started to increase spring salmon runs, and they
have started to ingrain the culture of catch and release among game
fishermen. That started with spring salmon, but has extended throughout
autumn and summer
runs.
Martin
Salter: The hon. Gentleman strengthens the point. Indeed,
my next address to the nation, in a moment, will be on precisely those
issues—fish steps, catch and release, and the new byelaw-making
powers that we propose to grant to the EA. There is no doubt
that the conservation measure he mentions was successful, and he is
right to say that we have ingrained into game fishing—game
fishermen have been a little slow on the uptake regarding the benefits
of catch and release—sensible conservation
measures.
Mr.
Walker: One of the original responses from such fishermen
was, “Well, if I can’t keep the salmon I catch,
I’m not going to bother going fishing for them,” and many
fishery owners were concerned that they would lose revenue, but that
threat never materialised. Indeed, more fishermen are now pursuing
spring salmon, because there are a few more of them
around.
Martin
Salter: The hon. Gentleman will know that we are anglers,
not fishmongers. Frankly, given the cost of salmon fishing, most of the
people who can afford to do it can afford to go to Waitrose or
somewhere else for their fish. The argument that we fish only for the
pot belongs in a bygone age.
To conclude,
I should like some assurance from the Minister regarding what exactly
is meant by the phrases in subsection (2). Does he share my concern
that one interpretation of that wording could continue to make some
agencies risk-averse when we want people to be bold on behalf of the
environment?
Huw
Irranca-Davies: Yes, I do share those concerns, and I have
given the matter considerable thought. The phrase “as it
considers appropriate” in clause 221(2) takes us to the meat of
this debate. I agree with my hon. Friend that the obligation to pay
compensation to an owner or occupier of any fishery that is injuriously
affected by a fisheries byelaw has at times discouraged the EA from
proposing byelaws that are necessary for the conservation of fish
stocks. Let me give my hon. Friend some assurance by stating quite
clearly that I consider that compensation should not be paid in
circumstances in which the byelaw in question was made for the express
purpose of conserving fish stocks, as increases in stocks will
ultimately benefit fishery owners. I hope that gives him the
reassurance that he rightfully seeks on this issue, because we want the
EA to make the right decisions where appropriate in such
circumstances. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
221 accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
222Theft
of fish from private fisheries etc
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Martin
Salter: I want to flag up an issue of huge concern to
recreational anglers, and certainly coarse anglers, who form the vast
majority of those who fish for pleasure, rather than for a living: the
outmoded and arcane system of byelaws currently in place in this
country. Those byelaws are probably not legally enforceable when it
comes to the taking of fish. It is perfectly
possible for someone to go fishing in the Thames area under a regime
that allows two fish of certain species to be taken, provided that they
are over a particular size, and then to cross the road into the Anglian
region, where totally different byelaws are in place.
It is
impossible for those of us who have fished all our lives to know
whether we are on the right side of a regime boundary and what its
particular byelaws are. It is totally impossible for eastern Europeans,
many of whom are keen fishermen, to understand those byelaws and know
where they apply. The Poles are particularly keen recreational anglers
and help boost the number of people who go fishing in this country, but
sadly they have a culture of taking fish for the pot, which has caused
problems in my constituency and in the constituency of the hon. Member
for Newbury. I can understand that, because in their culture the
Christmas delicacy is carp, Britain’s single most popular
fish.
Carp is worth
millions to the economy because of the livelihoods it sustains in the
fishing tackle industry and the fisheries, and the diversity from which
farmers have been able to generate additional income. It is a hugely
valuable recreational resource, but it is perfectly possible for
someone to fish in the Thames at Reading, Pangbourne or Goring and
catch a prize, 30 lb carp—a fish for which anglers would wait
years in the hope of catching—and barbecue it legally on the
bank. That does not do much for community relations. It is the result
of a clash of cultures, and it is not illegal. As my party
spokesman’s on angling, I am bombarded with letters from anglers
from all over the country asking why we are not going after those
people and prosecuting them, but the practice is legal, because our
byelaws are unenforceable, unintelligible, vary from region to region
and need radical overhaul.
To touch upon
a point raised by the hon. Member for Broxbourne, we need a
comprehensive system of catch and release. I am pleased to announce
that, in response to lobbying by yours truly and the excellent new
Angling Trust, the governing body for angling, the Environment Agency
has not waited for Parliament to conclude its deliberations on the
Bill: consultation is now running parallel to our deliberations in
Committee. The consultation was launched on 22 June and closes on 14
September. I encourage all of Britain’s 3 million anglers to
participate in that, because it is a radical overhaul of a system that
is, frankly, unworkable and indefensible.
We also need
to decide who owns fish and to determine which fish swim in public
water. Fish in a river can never be owned by anyone and therefore need
the protection of workable byelaws. Fish in an enclosed pond or lake,
however, are different. I occasionally fish in a lake not far from a
house owned, I believe, by the family of the hon. Member for Newbury,
and those fish belong to the Englefield estate, but the 30 lb carp I
mentioned, if swimming up the Thames, belongs to no one. If I were to
remove a fish from the hon. Gentleman’s lake on the Englefield
estate, he would undoubtedly, if so inclined, call the police, and I
could be prosecuted under the Theft Act 1968, although the schedule of
penalties is low and not a huge disincentive—I would probably
get more money selling carp than I would ever have to pay in
fines.
The Minister
may correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that the changes in the
amendments would increase the schedule of fines. The matter can be
resolved, and there is legislation in place, which needs to be
improved. Until we address the byelaws and until we encourage the
Environment Agency to bring forward a coherent system of regulation, we
will still have the problem of people taking fish for the pot, illegal
movement of fish, and fisheries legislation that makes no sense to the
angler who pays £25 or £26 for their rod
licence. Mr.
Walker: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and
I support him wholeheartedly. However, he will be aware that a number
of trout streams across England have a tradition of removing a limited
number of fish for the pot. Catch and release is growing, but there are
some streams that are so populated with small trout that there can be a
sustainable take from them. What does he propose to do in those
circumstances?
Martin
Salter: That is why a consultation has been launched by
the Environment Agency. That is why it is right and proper that we seek
not to prescribe the matter in the Bill, but to give the Environment
Agency the byelaw-making powers. There is a world of difference between
a river that is primarily a coarse fish river where one would expect
fish to be returned, and a stream where one can generate a sustainable
harvest. There is a world of difference between people stealing fish to
reseed and populate other fisheries in a way that could spread
diseases, particularly KHV—koi herpes virus, which could
decimate carp stocks in the UK if unchecked—and sensible
fisheries management.
I hope that
the Environment Agency will use the powers we give it to bring forward
byelaws that will deliver a national catch and release policy with
exceptions. Those exceptions could include the trout stream of the hon.
Member for Newbury, or sensible, well-organised clubs such as Newbury
angling club, or the Reading and district or Thatcham angling
associations—to give the clubs in our constituencies a
plug—which could apply to the relevant Environment Agency
fisheries officer for an exemption. Until we bring in a framework that
is coherent, understandable and enforceable, we will not make sense of
the issue.
| 
