Clause 221
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [Lords]
4:30 pm

Martin Salter (Reading West, Labour)

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 That is clearly outdated.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.

Charles Walker (Broxbourne, Conservative)

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 (Reading West, Labour)

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.

Charles Walker (Broxbourne, Conservative)

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 (Reading West, Labour)

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 (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Marine and Natural Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Ogmore, Labour)

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.