Draft Keeping and Introduction of Fish (England and River Esk Catchment Area) Regulations 2015
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
Ainsworth, Mr Bob (Coventry North East) (Lab)
† Aldous, Peter (Waveney) (Con)
† Birtwistle, Gordon (Burnley) (LD)
† Campbell, Mr Ronnie (Blyth Valley) (Lab)
† Eustice, George (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)
Farrelly, Paul (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds North East) (Lab)
† Jenrick, Robert (Newark) (Con)
Paisley, Ian (North Antrim) (DUP)
Paterson, Mr Owen (North Shropshire) (Con)
† Penrose, John (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)
† Phillipson, Bridget (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
† Smith, Angela (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
† Watkinson, Dame Angela (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
Watson, Mr Tom (West Bromwich East) (Lab)
† Wharton, James (Stockton South) (Con)
† Willott, Jenny (Cardiff Central) (LD)
Anne-Marie Griffiths, Katya Simms, Committee Clerks
† attended the Committee
Second Delegated Legislation Committee
Monday 1 December 2014
[Sir Edward Leigh in the Chair]
Draft Keeping and Introduction of Fish (England and River Esk Catchment Area) Regulations 2015
4.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice): I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Keeping and Introduction of Fish (England and River Esk Catchment Area) Regulations 2015.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. Section 232 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 enables the Government, subject to the approval of Parliament, to make legislation to regulate the introduction of fish into inland waters in England and the border River Esk catchment, as well as the keeping of fish in those waters. The new statutory instrument introduces a permitting scheme that will minimise the risk posed to the environment by inappropriate and illegal fish movements into our lakes, rivers and waterways. The new permitting scheme will operate in a much more efficient and risk-based way than the current scheme.
The regulations will repeal section 30 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 in England. We will also shortly modify the Prohibition of Keeping or Release of Live Fish (Specified Species) (England) Order 2014, so that its scope excludes inland waters, to prevent duplication of legislation. That order will therefore cover only certain ponds and aquariums, and will mainly regulate the trade in ornamental species.
Non-native invasive fish species pose a significant threat to native species through predation and competition, with additional potential impacts on the biodiversity of habitats. That threat also applies to commercial and recreational fishery waters. The necessity of stocking fish into inland waters for recreational angling and other purposes must therefore be balanced with appropriate safeguards for aquatic environments.
The proposed regulations will introduce a new permitting scheme to replace the existing legal requirements to obtain the Environment Agency’s consent for any introduction of fish into inland waters, and to obtain a licence for the keeping and release of non-native fish in inland waters. The regulations will make it an offence to keep fish or introduce fish other than in accordance with a single permit granted by the Environment Agency. The Environment Agency will also have the power to impose conditions on permits relating to matters such as the number of fish introduced or minimising the risk of fish escaping from inland waters. The new permitting scheme will enable the Environment Agency to adopt a risk-based approach to managing the introduction and keeping of fish. High-risk species will be given greater scrutiny, while the movement of low-risk species will be allowed to take place more freely. That is a significant
improvement on the current system, in which all fish movements are subject to the same level of regulation, irrespective of the risk they pose.The regulations provide more effective enforcement powers to enable the Environment Agency to remove illegal non-native fish where they are found. The Government consulted on the proposals in 2009, and as part of the water and marine red tape challenge in 2012. As stated in the explanatory memorandum accompanying the statutory instrument, most respondents supported the proposals. The regulations will produce a small saving for the industry of approximately £0.04 million over 10 years, and additional savings for the Environment Agency of £0.09 million over 10 years.
The regulations will also apply to the border Esk region of Scotland. Freshwater fisheries are best managed on a river-based and catchment basis, and England’s Environment Agency has managed fisheries in the border Esk region for many years. Under similar arrangements, Scotland manages freshwater fisheries in the River Tweed catchment, which is shared with England. The Scottish Government are fully aware and in total support of the new regulations. In summary, the Government consider that the approach set out in the statutory instrument will provide a more efficient and risk-based way of protecting local fisheries and biodiversity, while reducing the regulatory burdens on the angling and fish trade industry.
4.35 pm
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank the Minister for his explanation of the regulations, which are broadly welcomed by the Opposition. However, as the Minister would expect, there are questions to ask and we hope he will answer them. I acknowledge that the regulations have been generally welcomed by people working in the marine environment, such as anglers, the Environment Agency and the various bodies consulted. Indeed, the Angling Trust has told me it has been waiting with bated breath for the regulations.
As the Minster explained, the regulations will provide a new scheme for the introduction and keeping of fish in inland waters. The new regulations will apply to all of England’s rivers and the Scottish catchment of the River Esk—as the Minister explained, there are complications around the Tweed and the Esk, so that makes total sense because it allows for the application of the principle that rivers are best managed through a total catchment management approach. It is good to see that co-operation with the Scottish authorities and Parliament continues.
On the intent of the regulations, we recognise that the presence of non-native species in our river systems is one of the key causes of loss of biodiversity in many places. We also recognise that their presence not only damages our environment, but can lead to detrimental economic impacts. That is why fish stocking in inland waterways for recreational fishing has to be balanced with appropriate safeguards for the aquatic environment.
My understanding of the regulations is that they will replace the current controls on placing live fish in inland waters with a permitting system, as the Minister clearly outlined, which will require all fish introduced, transported and kept in inland waters to be permitted by the Environment Agency. The Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975, the Import of Live Fish (Scotland)
Act 1978, and the Import of Live Fish (England and Wales) Act 1980, already allow for that. Of course, the system is very complicated and cumbersome. It is hoped that the new system will offer a streamlined and more cost-effective process.The Minister outlined the savings estimate and reiterated the savings described in the explanatory notes. I know the savings are small and over a 10-year period, but will he inform the Committee whether the savings as they materialise will be retained by the Environment Agency?
I accept and welcome that the regulations are designed to support the economic value and growth of the angling sector, and at the same time to ensure adequate protection for the aquatic environment from the risk of invasive non-native fish, but I notice from the explanatory notes that a risk-based system will be adopted to deliver those outcomes. That means, of course, that those species perceived as higher risk will rightly be given greater scrutiny by the regulator.
Such an approach depends inevitably on accurate assessments of the likely damage that non-native species cause to the aquatic environment. Is the Minister confident that the assessment of introduced non-native species and their impact will be accurate and kept up to date? In addition, if low-risk species, by way of contrast, were to be found causing damage to the environment—they are low-risk species rather than no-risk species—is he confident that adequate plans are in place to minimise any damage and to remove the species from the marine or aquatic environment affected?
The explanatory notes on the regulations report that improved enforcement is to be put in place to ensure fishery owners are fully accountable. That is potentially a very welcome outcome of the new scheme. Is the Minister confident that the new regulatory system will offer the Environment Agency enough of the powers it needs to hold industry to account if the industry falls short of the standards required by the permitting process? Will the regulations offer the agency a more effective approach to tackling the environmental problems created by illegitimate and damaging practices? The Opposition would like to hear a little more about how the new system will help the Environment Agency to hold industry to account when damaging impacts are seen on the aquatic environment.
I notice that the Department received some 21 responses to the consultation on the regulations. I understand that the majority approved of the changes, but some respondents raised concerns. In particular, three people commented that the regulations will be difficult to comply with and will lead to an increase in illegal trade. That is not the design of the scheme and, of course, the new system dramatically streamlines the current process. Nevertheless, some respondents raised that point. Is the Minister confident that those concerns have been dealt with fully and that the scheme is not likely to lead to an increase in illegal trade? Will he assure us that the new guidance will be quickly available on the Government’s website and that those who need to access it—anglers as well as industry—will be able to easily locate it?
In conclusion, angling is an important recreation enjoyed by millions of people up and down the country. It is an activity that also generates significant economic benefit. However, I am sure that the vast majority of anglers would agree that a healthy aquatic environment that enjoys high levels of biodiversity is vital if that
activity is to continue to flourish. That means having a good, efficient system for regulating the aquatic environment and the risks involved in stocking inland waters. If the Minister can give the assurances we seek, the Opposition will be happy to offer our support to the regulations.4.42 pm
Dame Angela Watkinson (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con): I listened carefully to what the Minister said, and it occurred to me to ask whether the provisions include individuals who keep ornamental fish in domestic circumstances. I have never kept fish myself, but I know anecdotally that, if someone decides that they no longer wish to keep koi carp, it is extremely difficult to know what to do with them or how to dispose of them. Another koi carp keeper would be reluctant to take them in case a problem was introduced into their pond. Is there any incidence of people releasing koi into rivers? I am not even sure if they can survive in those circumstances. Should the regulations take that into consideration?
4.43 pm
George Eustice: I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge, for her general support for the regulations. At the moment, we get around 3,000 applications for individual consents and licences per year. We believe that transferring that into a general permitting scheme will enable us to target risk more effectively, and that that will probably reduce the number of permits we use to around 1,000 over the first three years.
The other thing to bear in mind is that the first key criterion looked at by the Environment Agency when deciding whether to grant a permit is on the types of species that can be released. A light-touch approach will be taken when it comes to rainbow trout and the more common species, and carp that might be released for coarse fishing. There would obviously be a ban on some of the more invasive species such as the topmouth gudgeon, which we have been trying to eradicate for many years. We would clearly never have a licensing system that would enable that to be introduced.
Another element that the Environment Agency will consider when deciding whether to grant a permit is the extent to which those seeking to release fish into our watercourses have the right disease control measures, so that we are not introducing fish that might spread disease. The hon. Lady asked whether we will have the power to vary those permits should new challenges arise. We will have that ability if we need to respond to those challenges. The permit is not necessarily set in stone, but will run until varied, which is the right approach.
The hon. Lady asked whether the Environment Agency would be allowed to keep the £90,000 that it saves over 10 years. If it were me, I am not sure I would base too many of my financial plans around a saving of £90,000 over 10 years. Looking at the decade ahead, there might be all sorts of changes to departmental budgets. Keeping that £90,000 might not be the biggest item on the agenda.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster asked about amateur garden ponds and the like. A provision defines what a lake is. We intend the regulations to be for the main inland waters and lakes, not for garden ponds. The last thing I want to do is to
get into regulating the release of carp, goldfish or anything else into garden ponds, which would be totally unenforceable. A threshold of 0.4 hectares has been set for the size of the inland waterway, which broadly means it would cover those lakes and reservoirs where coarse fishing is prevalent, but not a typical garden pond. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, the Prohibition of Keeping or Release of Live Fish (Specified Species) (England) Order 2014 is going through separately. That covers some of the specific ornamental fish issues.Dame Angela Watkinson: A thought occurred to me as the Minister was giving his response. Are any fish kept in domestic circumstances that would be predatory to native species if they were released into the wild?
George Eustice: There almost certainly are, although I am afraid I am not sufficiently expert on these things to be able to name any of them at the moment. However, it is for precisely that reason that, alongside the regulations, the Prohibition of Keeping or Release of Live Fish (Specified Species) (England) Order 2014 is designed to deal with those sorts of problems.
I welcome the fact that there seems to be consensus. We believe that, managed in an effective way, the new risk-based permitting scheme will give the Environment Agency the ability to continue to protect our local fisheries and the environment while allowing the angling and fish trade industries to flourish.