Clause 189
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [Lords]
12:30 pm
Martin Salter (Reading West, Labour)
I apologise to the Minister for not giving him direct notice of my point. The clause addresses sea fish size limits, and it would be remiss of me if I did not make a comment. It is a shame that the hon. Member for Broxbourne is not here—or perhaps not—as he gets similarly agitated about this.
I want to press the Minister on the promised review of his predecessor’s quite disgraceful decision not to implement the bass minimum landing size limit. The purpose of the Bill is to improve the environment for all species of fish and life forms around our coasts. The bass is an extremely valuable recreational fish. The recreational value of our bass fishery has not been assessed, but is pretty serious. I know the hon. Member for Newbury is keen to catch bass on the fly and I am quite happy to stick hooks in them; anyhow, they are superb fish.
Although the last Fisheries Minister but one made a solemn promise to implement a bass management plan, which involved raising the bass minimum landing size from the current 36 cm—a ridiculous limit given that he optimum spawning size for bass is around 40 to 42 cm—all 750,000 recreational sea anglers, who are all registered voters, were disappointed to say the least by the Minister’s predecessor’s subsequent decision. The Minister is showing himself to be very flexible and, at my behest, he met interested parties from the world of recreational sea angling. I am giving him the opportunity to say when he plans to review his predecessor’s decision. We were promised a review many months ago. I know that his officials would like to kick it into the long grass, but I can assure him that while there is breath in my body, that will not happen.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Marine and Natural Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Ogmore, Labour)
In response to a good and timely reminder of the obligation that I made when I had a very good meeting with my hon. Friend and the Angling Trust in Portcullis House, I will make good on my commitment to review the minimum landing size for bass at the earliest possible opportunity. I have slightly lost sight of it during our proceedings in Committee, so I cannot give a date. However, I am more than happy to discuss the issue further with my hon. Friend to make a good on my clear statement that I would review the matter at the earliest opportunity.
Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)
This is an important issue. Will the Minister confirm my reading of the Bill, which is that IFCAs will have the power to introduce byelaws to increase the minimum landing size in their own districts, as many authorities have done in the six-mile zone in the current districts? That applies to byelaws dealing not only with minimum landing sizes for a whole range of fish species, but with various lobsters, and a number of other matters that aid the conservation of fisheries.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Marine and Natural Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Ogmore, Labour)
Indeed. The hon. Gentleman’s interpretation is quite right. There is flexibility in the Bill to do what he says.
To reiterate, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West raised the fundamental issue of the review of the minimum landing size of bass, and he has rightly been persistent in pursuing it. I will speak to my officials and get back to him on the earliest date for a review of the issue.
Martin Salter (Reading West, Labour)
May I remind the Minister that I shall be standing down at the next election, so I would appreciate it if the review took place between now and next April?
Huw Irranca-Davies (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Marine and Natural Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Ogmore, Labour)
Indeed. The point is well made and noted. I really do hope to deliver before my hon. Friend stands down.
Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)
The issue of the minimum landing size of bass has been rightly raised, and it affects many inshore fisheries areas. Indeed, it also affects to offshore areas beyond the 12-mile limit, although I know that the serious issues raised in that respect are not part of this debate. We have also mentioned the regulations that IFCAs will operate within and IFCAs’ ability to introduce not only their own byelaws to protect the fishing resource, but variations in landing size, which will, one hopes, increase rather than decrease landing size.
In my intervention a moment ago—I know that the Minister was seeking inspiration from his civil servants and that he may not have heard me—I said that other important issues are pertinent to the conservation of fishing stock, and they relate not only to the minimum landing size, but to the protection of spawning stock.
I have mentioned berried lobsters, and the Cornwall sea fisheries committee has been attempting for some time to introduce measures not only to V-notch lobsters, which should be protected because they are immature, but to ensure that berried lobsters are equally protected. Where byelaws are required to protect such lobsters and other sea creatures that are targeted by the fishing industry, I hope that the Minister will give the Committee some reassurance that IFCAs will have the power to introduce measures to protect stock.
Martin Salter (Reading West, Labour)
I do not disagree with the thrust of what the hon. Gentleman has said, but does he recognise that there is limited value, particularly with species such as bass and other highly mobile fish, in having locally based size limits? Clearly, the stocks will move around.
Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)
I entirely accept that point, but I am concentrating primarily on shellfish. I support the criticism that the hon. Gentleman has been making—hence my comment about ensuring that there is a reference to regulations that go beyond the six-mile limit. As far as nationally set minimum landing sizes are concerned, I certainly hope that future Secretaries of State will err on the side of increasing those beyond their current size and allowing IFCAs to introduce their own byelaws to raise further those standards and the minimum landing sizes beyond the nationally set limits.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Marine and Natural Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Ogmore, Labour)
I clarify that the clause allows for orders to be made to set a maximum size limit or a size range outside which no fish may be landed, sold or carried. It updates the conservation powers currently available to Ministers and provides a potentially valuable tool to aid the conservation of certain species of fish. For example, a maximum size limit or a size range could be a more effective technical conservation tool for some species, such as elasmobranchii, than a minimum size limit by ensuring that the larger, more fecund specimens are returned to the sea when caught. IFCAs will certainly be able to increase the minimum landing size to suit local circumstances, a point made by both hon. Gentlemen. I can offer the assurances the hon. Member for St. Ives is seeking: the provision allows flexibility and will aid the conservation of certain species.