Clause 168
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [Lords]
11:15 am
The purpose of this amendment is to provide that the IFC Authorities are able to delegate powers to the Environment Agency to manage all fish species in upper estuaries.
Issues regarding the exact terms of reference and the boundaries which will apply to the new IFCAs came up extensively in the Joint Committee. There have been strong representations from environmental groups, recreational anglers and the Environment Agency suggesting that the original draft of the Bill got it wrong. It would be difficult to describe something more perverse than the notion of a sea fisheries committee—albeit a revised sea fisheries committee given a new name, a new budget and strengthened with greater representation, but still a sea fisheries authority—having jurisdiction on the River Thames from outside the window of this Committee Room up to the tidal limit at Teddington weir. There are no commercial sea fishing interests in Twickenham, Isleworth and Brentford—at least none that I know of, and certainly not when compared with the value of the freshwater fishery, or the millions of pounds generated in the sale of freshwater rod licences. Thousands of recreational anglers, in particular, enjoy fishing the tidal Thames, irrespective of the fact that Thames Water has just committed another act of pollution at Mogden sewage treatment works, which I am sure is something to which we will return.
One can look at other river catchments in the country—for example, the River Severn in Gloucestershire. The tidal limit of the River Severn goes up to Gloucester. What sea fisheries interest is there in Gloucester? More ridiculously—perhaps this is something to do with the fact that I am told the country is tilting gradually into the sea towards the east—the tidal limit of the Trent runs up to Cromwell weir, just outside Nottingham. Do we seriously want our new sea fisheries committees to be primarily worrying about freshwater fisheries miles and miles inland? Of course not. There was clearly an error in the way in which the Bill was put together, and the amendment seeks to address that.
May I read for the record a recommendation from the Joint Committee? As I said in my introductory remarks at the start of the Committee stage, for many of us, that informs our approach to many of the issues in the Bill, which has been well scrutinised. The Joint Committee process was successful and I am surprised that its recommendations did not find their way into the Government’s thinking. Recommendation 63 stated:
“We believe there is a strong case for the Environment Agency to manage the majority of fisheries in estuaries but we would, in addition, support the establishment of working boundaries between the Environment Agency and IFCAs on a case by case basis in consultation with the relevant estuary or coastal partnership where they exist. In general these boundaries should be based on the upstream limit of commercial fishing interest,”—
that is an important point—
“with the Environment Agency managing all fisheries upstream of this boundary (set out in secondary legislation) and migratory fisheries interest below out to six nautical miles. However, the Bill should allow the Environment Agency to retain management of the whole of estuaries where they are already acting as the Sea Fisheries Committee (under cross-warranting procedures) if this is the optimal local arrangement.”