Clause 222
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [Lords]
4:45 pm
Martin Salter (Reading West, Labour)
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.