Britain’s 3.9 million anglers have been given another early Christmas present by Fisheries Minister Ben Bradshaw when he announced last week that angling would be specifically excluded from the provisions of the Animal Welfare Bill. There had been some concern that the Bill could inadvertently affect angling and commercial fishing and lead to legal challenges.
Giving evidence last Wednesday (27th October) to the House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee Mr Bradshaw said:-
“…on fishing and angling, there has been concern expressed that the Bill will threaten commercial fishing and angling. It is not our intention to do that but in response to those representations we do propose to exempt specifically these activities from prosecutions under the cruelty and welfare offence.”
Mr Bradshaw’s clarification followed strong lobbying from Reading West MP Martin Salter who is also Parliamentary Spokesman for Angling as well as from a number of angling’s governing bodies.
Mr Salter said:-
“The Animal Welfare Bill is about pets and captive animals. It is not aimed at wild creatures such as fish, nor is it intended to have any impact on the sport of angling. The decision to specifically exclude angling and commercial fishing is most welcome as it will avoid the spectacle of lawyers charging fat fees to try and prove that a fish caught on the end of a fishing line or placed in a keepnet is in fact some sort of temporary pet.”
He added:-
“Ben Bradshaw has been as good as his word in ensuring that anglers have nothing to fear from the Animal Welfare Bill. This Labour government has proved a strong supporter of angling – not just in words but in actions.”
David Bird and Mike Heylin of the Specialist Anglers’ Alliance expressed their joint pleasure:
“This is great news, and it fully justifies the unified lobbying of Defra and the House of Commons Select Committee by national angling and fisheries bodies. We were asked for our opinion, and it was heard and acted upon”.
Dr Bruno Broughton, Technical Director of the Angling Trades Association, also welcomed the announcement:
“Anglers and fisheries interests will be relieved that they cannot now be inadvertently caught by the Bill’s provisions. The Minister should be congratulated that he has again demonstrated the Government’s strong support for angling. The Bill still has to be debated and passed by the House of Commons, of course, so we must remain both confident and vigilant”.
His words were echoed by Paul Knight, Director of the Salmon & Trout Association:
“We are delighted that the Minister has been able to clarify that angling and fisheries will indeed be excluded from the Bill. This will reassure our members of the Government’s continued commitment to angling in acknowledgement of the sport’s socio-economic and environmental importance.”
Relevant extracts from Ben Bradshaw’s evidence to the Select Committee, 27th October 2004
Ben Bradshaw – Thirdly on fishing and angling, there has been concern expressed that the Bill will threaten commercial fishing and angling. It is not our intention to do that but in response to those representations we do propose to exempt specifically these activities from prosecutions under the cruelty and welfare offence. Farmed and ornamental fish will not be exempted.
Q972 Mr Drew: Just to conclude this question, this is actually a very wide definition rather than a restrictive definition (because I took it to be quite restrictive) so, effectively, any animal could be deemed to be under control and therefore subject to this legislation in terms of cruelty?
Ms Connell (Legal Adviser, DEFRA): Once it becomes under your control, yes.
Q973 Mr Drew: That is where the argument will come?
Ms Connell: Yes. Mr Bradshaw: And that is one of the reasons we have exempted fish on a hook or in a net.
Q980 Mr Mitchell: Let us turn to fish because the theological implications come in there. They are vertebrates and therefore come under the Bill. We are involved in a theological argument as to whether fish feel pain and misery and happiness at the thought of being taken to Grimsby and eaten eventually. Did I hear you say earlier that you are going to take fish out of the legislation?
Mr Bradshaw: We do not think – and indeed this has been the case under the 1911 Bill and exactly the same applies to fish as well – there is a danger that a fish on the decks of one of your Grimsby trawlers
Q981 Mr Mitchell: — Where the skipper is the keeper?
Mr Bradshaw: Absolutely. We do not believe that if fish were not exempted that there would be a successful prosecution in these sorts of cases, but to err on the side of caution we have decided, as a result of listening to representations that have been made by the angling and commercial fishing organisations, to do what the New Zealanders have done in their legislation which is to specifically exempt fish from the remit of this Bill. That leads back in a way to one of the points the Chairman made earlier about cephalopods and crustaceans, which is if we were exempting fish it would be make it rather difficult to then include crustaceans and cephalopods. I am just being corrected in terms of terminology. We are exempting “fishing” rather than “fish”.
Q982 Mr Mitchell: That is different.
Mr Bradshaw: Yes it is different because kept fish in fish farms are already governed by EU welfare legislation and ornamental fish will continue to be covered.
Q983 Mr Mitchell: Are you saying that fish on the deck of the trawler or in the fisherman’s bucket are exempt?
Mr Bradshaw: Yes.
Q984 Mr Mitchell: I am delighted to hear it because I was dreading the prospect of what happened before the last two elections when I had hoards of anglers and it is a very popular hobby coming to my constituency surgery arguing that the Labour government would, as it was banning fox hunting also ban fishing. It will not have any effect on commercial fishing or angling?
Mr Bradshaw: It will not and although this is diverting slightly from the remit of this Committee I think as with recent decisions we have made on a number of things like enforcement of management of inshore waters and on cormorant protection you can go back to your angling constituents and hold your head up high.
Q985 Mr Mitchell: Are you going to achieve that by an exemption to clause 3(1) or are you also going to exempt it in clause 54?
Mr Bourne (Head of Animal Welfare Division, DEFRA): We will exempt commercial fishing and angling from clause 1, the cruelty offence and what is currently clause 3, the welfare offence, but we will not be changing 53, I suspect.
Q986 Mr Mitchell: 54?
Mr Bourne: 54 is a general interpretation. 53 is the definition of “animal” which I presume is what you are talking about. We will not be changing that because, as I say, we have to include fish, partly because there is veterinary advice that there is significant evidence that they may feel pain and, secondly, the practical point, they are covered by the EU regulation that covers all farmed animals, so if we are to have the structure of a Bill that covers the entirety of kept animals therefore we have to make sure it is consistent with WOFAR and therefore we have to include fish.
Q987 Chairman: Can I pick you up on a point of language. You talked about all farmed animals. There are efforts being made to develop the farming of crustacean. Does that mean they will be brought in by another route?
Mr Bourne: No, WOFAR is the Welfare of Farmed Animals Regulation which implements an EU Directive but it does also specify what it covers in there. I will turn to Caroline for expert advice on that.
Ms Connell: I have not got a copy of the regulations in front of me so I cannot check just now what the definition is and I cannot remember off the top of my head what the definition of animal is but I think it is restricted to vertebrates.
Chairman: As the world of “marine farming” is developed it could pose some interesting questions so far as this legislation is concerned.
Q988 Mr Mitchell: And you are satisfied that to exclude it from the earlier clauses but not from the definition of “protected animals” is not going to lead to confusion?
Mr Bourne: Sorry?
Q989 Mr Mitchell: You are satisfied that to exclude fishing from the earlier clauses but not from the definition of “protected animals” is not going to lead to a confusion over which there could be prosecutions of either anglers or commercial fishermen?
Mr Bourne: We are confident that by exempting particular and specified activities that will not cause confusion compared with the species that are covered by the Bill. They are two separate angles and we are confident that there will not be confusion caused by that particular exemption on that particular activity.
