Mr.
Williams: Many of us are concerned about the migratory
salmonids, such as salmon and trout. It is often said that the
reduction in numbers is to do with commercial fishing outside the
estuary as well. If we are to ensure that those populations do not
decrease further, there has to be good co-ordination between the IFCAs
and the Environment Agency. Will the hon. Gentleman indicate how that
will
occur?
Martin
Salter: Sadly, I am not the Minister, but I can give my
view on that important point. The Committee will be aware that fish do
not read maps. We can designate IFCAs and boundaries between the
Environment Agency and the enhanced sea fisheries committees, but at
the end of the day, a migratory fish species will move from saline
water up through the estuaries, hopefully, if not over-exploited or
poached, into the hon. Gentleman’s wonderful constituency of
Brecon and Radnorshire. The Environment Agency is already the sea
fisheries power out to the 6 nautical mile-limit, and its important
role is recognised in the current arrangements, as it has been in
previous legislation, as the prime agency with responsibility for
migratory fish. Committee members should make no mistake: the economic
value of salmon in particular is immense, and is considerably more
valuable than commercial fishing interests in many regions of the
country.
Mr.
Benyon: I am intrigued by the hon. Gentleman’s
amendment and am inclined to support it. Will he clarify it a bit more?
I like the idea of a degree of flexibility, and that is precisely what
would be required, because some estuarial areas are immense and some
are very fine and under intensive management already. What we want to
avoid is a turf war, or perhaps a surf
war— [Laughter.] I apologise, it just came
into my head. We want to avoid a turf war between two organisations,
which could be to the detriment of the management of fisheries. I agree
with the hon. Gentleman on flexibility, but that should not result in
conflict between two
organisations.
Martin
Salter: May I put on the record that that was probably the
worst pun of the parliamentary
Session?
The
Chairman: Order. No, it was rather
good.
Martin
Salter: Let us get back to fish, rather than surfing. I
thank the hon. Member for Newbury for his support for the principle of
the amendment. He is absolutely right. Estuaries do not easily conform
to conveniently drawn lines on maps, nor do the fisheries’
interests. For example, in the Humber estuary, the commercial interest
comes a considerable way inland and therefore it would not be, as I
initially thought when I looked at the proposal, convenient simply to
draw a line parallel with the coast where the estuary meets the sea.
That would not work. The way to proceed is on a case-by-case basis, and
the amendment seeks to achieve that.
As
to how we avoid turf wars, hon. Members should bear in mind that
deliberations in Committee effectively inform future judgments. If
there is a dispute, counsel and advisers will often go back to our
debates to ascertain what Parliament intended. Clearly, what Parliament
would wish in this case is to pre-empt any unnecessary turf wars. There
will be enough for IFCAs to do without treading on the toes of the
Environment Agency, which, by and large, does not do a bad job. It
could do with more resources, but with the increase from the sales of
fishing rod licences its resources are expanding. It does not do a bad
job of managing our freshwater fisheries. I certainly do not want its
powers, its influence or, more importantly, its expertise to be
limited. In
conclusion, the amendment makes good environmental sense. It also makes
good logistical sense. It certainly makes good sense in terms of using
the current experience and expertise at our disposal, and it makes
eminent sense as regards the management of those fisheries, which are
important to both the commercial and the recreational
sector.
Mr.
Walker: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member
for Reading, West. He is a great champion of fishing and fishermen. I
spend many evenings on riverbanks
with him and many days catching the beautiful freshwater fish that swim
in our rivers. I share his concern. It would be quite ridiculous for me
to fish at Teddington for chub and roach, not bass and mullet, and to
see an IFCA fishery officer cruising past me in his boat. Although it
is clearly in the tidal reach, Teddington is not a sea fishery. There
are lots of pike, carp and exciting fish, but they are not sea
fish. There
are issues of overlap that we need to be concerned about, particularly
where we have migratory fish runs, but the Environment Agency is
responsible for recruitment and breeding in the rivers. It will take a
close interest in what is happening to migratory fish stocks in
freshwater fisheries, namely rivers. It will know what spawning numbers
are required, and what catch rates and release rates are being
achieved. It would be mad for the EA to hand over responsibility for
the estuary to IFCAs; commercial sea fishermen could net out the salmon
and sea trout as they nose into the freshwater, thereby denuding that
river of its native stock that leads to sustainable recreational
fisheries in the
river. It
is not just fishermen who benefit from stocks of salmon and sea trout.
It is also local hoteliers, the local tourist trade and, dare I say it,
those lovely animals that people like to see in our rivers, otters.
Like the hon. Member for Reading, West, I have no time for mink, but I
have a lot of time for otters, and sustainable fisheries support
healthy otter populations.
Martin
Salter: May I counsel the hon. Gentleman? We all enjoy
seeing otters in the natural environment, but some of the wildlife
trusts that have reintroduced otters into our rivers have done so
without regard to the available food source. That is an important
issue. There needs to be some balance to ensure that that apex predator
does not do untold damage to
fisheries.
Mr.
Walker: The hon. Gentleman makes my point perfectly. The
Environment Agency has responsibility, in the main, for our freshwater
fisheries. It should be consulted and included in important decisions,
and it should have the final say on what happens. If we are to have
viable fish populations, we need to ensure that the interests of fish
are balanced against the interests of otters. That will always be the
case. I
spend a lot time fishing on the Bure in Norwich. I shall be in Norwich
in the coming weeks, but not to fish, unfortunately. The Bure is tidal
up to Horning, and the idea of IFCA officers patrolling Horning among
the pike fishermen is ridiculous. The amendment is good and sensible.
We discussed it a year ago in the Joint Committee on the Bill, when we
got frightfully excited about it, and now we are frightfully excited
about it again. The issue matters to fishermen on both sides of the
House. Fishing transcends party politics. It is not quite a religion,
but it is very close to being so. I therefore hope that the Minister
will accept the amendment in good grace, and ensure that the Government
implement the necessary changes so that common sense
prevails. Dr.
Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab): I want briefly
to add my support for what is an eminently sensible amendment. Outside
the window, in front of
the Houses of Parliament, there is a stretch of estuary upon which, as
the hon. Member for Broxbourne has intimated, an inshore fisheries
vessel could potentially sail back and forth, which would clearly be
inappropriate in terms of estuarial fish management. We do not have
such long tidal runs in my Southampton constituency, but the Eling Tide
Mill and the Wood Mill tidal reaches represent the end of an estuary
that would also be inappropriate for inshore fisheries management. A
permissive regime that allows negotiations on how management is best
undertaken seems a straightforward way to
proceed.
Martin
Salter: I was remiss in not mentioning the Southampton
estuaries, because the combined value of the migratory fish runs of
salmon and sea trout in the Test and the Itchen, which flows through
the hon. Gentleman’s fair city, is worth millions—I
cannot remember the correct figure—to the local economy. Does he
agree that we tamper with the enforcement regime of that valuable
resource at our
peril?
Dr.
Whitehead: I agree. I am slightly concerned that I have
encouraged my hon. Friend to expatiate further on the joys of fishing
and of estuarial fish stocks. While I share hon. Members’
enthusiasm for inshore fisheries and the management of inshore fish
stocks, I must say that the idea of spending seven hours on a riverbank
catching nothing whatever does not inspire me to the same degree as
others on the
Committee.
Mr.
Walker: The hon. Gentleman has clearly not been fishing
with us, because we never spend seven hours on the riverbank not
catching
anything.
Dr.
Whitehead: As I feared, we are going to get into
fish-catching
stories.
The
Chairman: No, we are not; we are going to curtail the
“Wind in the Willows”
tendency.
Dr.
Whitehead: I will rapidly proceed to my conclusion. We
looked at the matter in some detail during pre-legislative scrutiny,
and we came to a straightforward and logical conclusion about how the
issues should be managed. The amendment reflects that, and it is
important that we move substantially along that route in the final form
of the
Bill. 11.45
am
Nick
Ainger: I will not comment on the sadness of people who
get excited about this
issue. My
constituency has some of the finest fishing areas in the UK—the
Tywi, the Teifi, the Taf and so on—and I am appreciative of the
huge income that that generates for the local economy. However, rather
than talking about migratory sea fish, I want to return to something
that the Minister and I discussed earlier. The Dee estuary is an
example of where the sea fisheries committee covering an area has
delegated its responsibility to the Environment agency. The amendment
would confirm that such a working arrangement may
operate. Although
hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have made the case well for
the importance of migratory fish and the inter-relationship between the
Environment
Agency, which looks after our rivers and parts of our estuaries, and the
role of IFCAs, I am concerned that if the amendment or something
similar is not in the Bill, there might be difficulties in managing
certain fisheries, such as the cockle fishery in the Dee estuary. I
support the principle of the amendment and am interested to hear what
the Minister has to say. Mr.
Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab): I should
declare at the outset that I am neither a fisherman nor a golfer. I
believe that the skills required for both of those sports are far more
than I can handle. Apart from anything else, I do not have the patience
for
them. I
apologise for this, Mr. Gale, but I probably should have
spoken to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West before he moved
the amendment. While I am minded to support it, I am not sure whether
it is a probing amendment. Having working relationships and
arrangements in place to ensure that we do not end up with inshore
fishery vessels up and down stretches of rivers where they are not
required is paramount. As I said, I am unsure whether my hon. Friend
wishes to do anything more than probe the
Minister.
Martin
Salter: To reassure my hon. Friend, I will press the
amendment to a Division if the Minister’s response is not as
robust as the Committee hopes that it will
be.
Mr.
Brown: On the basis of that robust statement, I will say
nothing further. We will all listen more than a little attentively to
what the Minister has to say.
Andrew
George: I have attached my name to the amendment and I
wish to give the sentiments that underlie it a fair wind. It is clear
from the contributions so far that it would be likely that the
amendment would be supported if the Committee were to divide. All that
I want now is advice on the technical drafting, which I am sure that
the Minister will give in any case. I hope that the drafting will pass
muster. Certainly, at least allowing an IFCA, if it desired, to
delegate in certain circumstances, particularly with regard to
estuaries, is a good principle and common sense. The absurdity of the
scenarios that the hon. Member for Reading, West outlined in his
opening address was very well expressed.
Martin
Salter: The hon. Gentleman inspires me—it is not
often that I am inspired by anyone. Has he given any thought to what
would happen if an IFCA decided not to use its delegation, but there
was an overpowering environmental case to change the management
arrangements and use that delegation? Who would hold the ring in those
circumstances?
Andrew
George: I am inspired to respond—it is not often
that I am—to the hon. Gentleman. There are sometimes
circumstances, particularly at the mouth of an estuary, in which the
interests of a sea fisheries committee and those of the Environment
Agency are in conflict, or certainly where the bodies do not see eye to
eye. There is, in fact, a cross-border issue. I cannot envisage
circumstances of the kind that the hon. Gentleman described a long way
upstream in an estuary, where an IFCA might not wish to delegate its
authority. Having
drafted the amendment and served on the Joint Committee, he will perhaps
have considered the issues more deeply than I have, but I am aware that
there are circumstances in which there has been a possible
contradiction, certainly an overlap, and a possible conflict between
the objectives of the current sea fisheries committees and what the
Environment Agency is trying to do at the mouth of an
estuary.
Martin
Salter: This might be a “get out of jail
free” card for the Minister, but it occurs to me that there
might be a case for redrafting the amendment for consideration on
Report to resolve the question of how to deal with a conflict, which I
am not sure the amendment as drafted would do as strongly as we would
like. My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen, West and South
Pembrokeshire put forward a good arrangement that would operate by
consent, but people are not always reasonable and we do not want to
leave the door open for unreasonableness further down the
road.
Andrew
George: The hon. Gentleman demonstrates his reasonableness
by being prepared to bring back an amendment on Report after ensuring
that it is technically proficient and capable of achieving what I think
we all wish to achieve: a common-sense
outcome. Under
proposed new subsection (6) in amendment 51, there would be
the option of not only a delegation to the Environment Agency, but of a
delegation to the MMO, but I cannot envisage the circumstances,
particularly in the context of an estuary, in which the MMO, rather
than the Environment Agency, would be the preferred body. I perhaps
should have intervened on the hon. Gentleman when he was discussing
that, but he might wish to respond to that point. Perhaps I have not
foreseen the circumstances in which such a scenario might occur. Other
than that, I simply want to say that the sentiment behind the amendment
is absolutely right. We look forward to the Minister’s response,
and particularly to clarification about the amendment’s
technical ability to achieve what I think the majority of the Committee
wish to
occur.
| 
