Clause 222

Marine and Coastal Access Bill [Lords] – in a Public Bill Committee at 4:45 pm on 7 July 2009.

Alert me about debates like this

Theft of fish from private fisheries etc

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Photo of Martin Salter Martin Salter Labour, Reading West

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.

Photo of Charles Walker Charles Walker Conservative, Broxbourne

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?

Photo of Martin Salter Martin Salter Labour, Reading West

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.

Photo of Huw Irranca-Davies Huw Irranca-Davies Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) (Marine and Natural Environment)

This has been another good discussion about the Bill and what is happening outside it too. My hon. Friend is right to point out that currently fish theft carries a maximum penalty of £200 during the day and £1,000 at night, and, potentially, imprisonment for three months. Clause 222 amends paragraph 2 of schedule 1 of the Theft Act 1968, raising the penalty for committing the offence of taking or destroying fish to level 5 on the standard scale—£5,000. Some such fish, not least carp, change hands on the black fish market for £1,000 a piece and more.

My hon. Friend referred to the consultation recently launched by the Environment Agency. I am pleased that the Angling Trust and others are fully engaged in the consultation, on how many fish, if any, might be taken from fisheries and rivers. The byelaws will be drafted based on the public response to the consultation, using the powers in the Bill. Those byelaws will deal with fish theft, and the EA has been constrained to act before the amendments give it the power, once the Bill has received Royal Assent. I also draw my hon. Friend’s attention to powers that we have given the EA, under clause 218, to make byelaws to set maximum size limits on fish that may be removed from a fishery.

Finally, schedule 16(8) would remove the current exemption for owners of certain private fisheries to permit anglers to remove freshwater fish during the close season, as that would undermines any catch and release byelaws that the agency may introduce to address fish theft. My hon. Friend’s points are well made.

Photo of Martin Salter Martin Salter Labour, Reading West

I thank the Minister. I am sure that the Committee will be grateful to him for addressing a number of issues in subsequent clauses, which will save me from seeking further stand part debates. Can I push him on the broader powers of the Environment Agency? He will be aware that I recently convened a meeting of recreational anglers to find out what they were looking for in a marine Bill. Concern was expressed over whether the Environment Agency’s current duty to improve, develop and maintain fisheries, and enhance the social and economic contribution of fisheries, would continue. I see no sign that it will not, but I invite the Minister to put that on the record because reassurance would be much appreciated by Britain’s 3 million anglers.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 222 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 223 to 227 ordered to stand part of the Bill.