Clause 2.—(METHODS OF FISHING.) (Hansard, 24 January 1951)

§ The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew)
I do not call the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan) as there is a similar Government Amendment on the Order Paper.

§ Captain Duncan (South Angus)
May I be assured by the Secretary of State that he will, in fact, move that Amendment?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. McNeil)
I do not know how regular this is, but I gladly give that assurance to the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
I beg to move, in page 2, line 6, after "proprietor," to insert "or occupier."
This covers the occupier as well as the owner because in many cases there will be long leases.

§ Mr. Perkins (Stroud and Thornbury)
I beg to move, in page 2, line 7, at the end, to insert: or gaff or snare or explosive or gun. The object of this Amendment is to allow a proprietor to use any known method to exterminate pike in a river. As the Bill is now drawn, I understand 174 that the only method by which coarse fish and fresh water fish, including pike, can be taken from a river is by rod and line, net or trap. Consequently, I wish to add the words: or gaff or snare or explosive or gun. The Committee are, no doubt, aware that in many Scottish salmon rivers there are a lot of pike. I am certain that hon. Members in all quarters will agree that pike are vermin. I can give the House a small illustration. Last year I caught a small pike weighing about one and a half pounds; I cut him open and found four salmon parr inside him. At the end of a year 250 pike, if they feed four times a day, can destroy something like a million salmon. Pike are vermin and, in fact, do more damage in a river than all the poachers put together. I therefore move this Amendment to enable the proprietor of a river to use any method to get rid of these brutes.

Mr. McNeil
For very obvious reasons I cannot accept this Amendment. It is not that I am at all unsympathetic to the general proposition put by the hon. Gentleman. We are all aware of the great damage which pike can do in a river or a loch, although I should like to see the statistical evidence upon which the hon. Gentleman comes to the conclusion that one pike can do more damage than all the poachers. That is a rather wide conclusion.
We have, of course, made provision for the normal methods of attacking pike by the use of the snare and trap, but the other two methods advocated would, I fancy, do more harm than good. For example, if we authorise the use of a rifle 175 or a gun for pike, what can we say to a man who we meet on the river bank, with a rifle under his arm and who is obviously looking for a good-sized salmon? He will say, "No, you are making a great mistake. I am carrying this rifle only in case I see a pike. I should not dream of using it in any other circumstances." That would seem to me to be a thorough defence, although, I should think, a most unlikely tale.
As to the use of explosives, I am willing to be instructed in the technicalities of the subject, but it would seem to me a fairly risky business unless we were satisfied that an explosion would kill only pike. We are excluding the use of explosives because we know of the great damage done to salmon parr and trout by the use of explosives. The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that there is a provision in Clause 9 by which, if it is established that explosives are needed for the benefit of the fishery, the Secretary of State is entitled to give such permission. If a case were made which convinced me that exclusively pike could be attacked or that a fishery could be improved by the use of explosives, then, of course, I would be anxious to be so persuaded, but I suggest that to permit the use of firearms and explosives to attack pike would lead us to a much worse position than we are in at present. I therefore cannot accept the Amendment.

§ Mr. Perkins
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. McNeil
I beg to move, in page 2, line 7, at the end, to insert: (3) Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting the use of a gaff or landing-net as auxiliary to the taking of salmon or freshwater fish by rod and line. This is the point on which an hon. Gentleman opposite asked for an assurance. The use of a gaff as an auxiliary to the ordinary methods of fishing by rod and line is legal at the present time except on the Tweed between certain dates. The dates are 15th September to 1st May. The Amendment makes it clear that the use of a gaff as an auxiliary exclusively to fishing by rod and line will continue to be legal except where it is at present prohibited. I hope, therefore, that 176 the Committee will accept this Amendment.

§ Mr. John Morrison (Salisbury)
I should like to take the opportunity of thanking the Secretary of State for including this Amendment. I have an Amendment down on similar lines later which is more or less covered by this one. I should like to ask the Secretary of State to answer the question about tailer, which was invented to protect fish. I hope that that will be covered as well.

Mr. McNeil
It is not an instrument with which I have any familiarity. I have not used it, but I understand the purpose of it. I should like to assure the hon. Gentleman that on Report I will introduce an Amendment to cover the legitimate use of the tailer.

§ Mr. Pryde
On behalf of my constituents I should like to thank my right hon. Friend for the Amendment, which is sensible and practical.

§ Captain Duncan
I had an Amendment down on this point, but I think that the right hon. Gentleman's is better than mine, and I thank him for it.

§ Brigadier Thorp
I should like to clear up a point—

§ Captain Duncan
On a point of order. I have an Amendment down to the Clause, in page 2, line 7, at the end, to insert: (3) No person shall use any instrument for dragging for nor any otter for catching salmon or freshwater fish. Is it your intention to call it, Sir Charles?

§ The Deputy-Chairman
No.

§ Brigadier Thorp
The point I want to raise I may have to raise later. It is how the various Clauses affect England, particularly the district of the Tweed Valley. Does this Clause, which prevents a person taking fish and salmon in any inland water, cover the district of the River Tweed outwith Scotland? I believe that that is the right word, and that it means "outside" Scotland. Does the Clause cover that? What is the meaning of "inland waterway"? I see that the definition says: 177 'Inland waters' includes all rivers above estuary limits and their tributary streams, and all waters, watercourses and lochs whether natural or artificial draining into the sea. What is the definition of "draining into the sea"? There are many small lochs and ponds, and even bigger spaces of water in north Northumberland, and I am not quite sure how far we can, or will be permitted, if the Bill becomes an Act, to fish for freshwater fish in these various pieces of water, and I should like an explanation of how far this Clause affects England and how far south it will be effective.

§ Mr. Woodburn (Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire)
On Second Reading I raised some legal points about the definition of net and coble, and I suggested that the Lord Advocate might look into the question and that the Secretary of State might take powers to review cases where the physical condition of the river made it impossible for that method to be used in the traditional way. Such variations occur on the River Tay, and I raised the special problems of the River Forth. I take it that since there is no Amendment down by the Secretary of State he has been unable to find any method of introducing flexibility.
I should like to explain to the Committee that I have made some inquiries myself of the fishermen and other people connected with the Forth, and that I have been unable to find any method of making the law more specific without making it worse for the fisherman. It is not my intention, naturally, to make the position worse for the fishermen, but I should like to state that on Report, were such a method found, I should introduce such an Amendment. At the moment I do not propose to move one.

§ Captain Duncan
I want it made quite clear what exactly is the method of rod and line. The Amendment which I had down, about which I asked a moment ago, and which has not been called, was designed to try to obtain from the Government a clear statement of what rod and line really is. For instance, using an otter is fishing with rod and line, with a great many hooks at the end but it can be classed as rod and line. There are various instances of dragging which are a form of fishing with rod and line, 178 but I am not clear whether they are illegal fishing, and covered in the Bill.
I want the Minister who is to reply to explain quite clearly, in addition to the definition in the definition Clause, what is rod and line, because we should get it clear. We have to tighten up the Bill to prevent the poacher, driven from gang poaching, going into individual poaching harder than ever with single rods and lines and clearing pools almost as fast as the gangs are clearing them now with various illegal methods.

§ Mr. Pryde
There is a great deal in what the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite has just said. We require a clear definition of what legal rod and line fishing is. However, the point I want to raise is this. The Committee have now agreed that legal fishing can take place only by possession of a permit, and I want to ask my right hon. Friend if he will make provision for permits to be available to anglers early in the morning.

§ Sir D. Robertson
Further to the point made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Angus, South (Captain Duncan), as the law now stands the instruments he has in mind are illegal. They are all covered in Section 17 of the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act, 1868. It says: Every Person that shall use any Light or Fire of any kind, or any Spear, Leister, Gaff, or other like Instrument, or Otter, for catching Salmon, or any Instrument for dragging for Salmon, or have in his Possession a Light or any of the foresaid Instruments under such Circumstances as to satisfy the Court before whom he is tried that he intended at the Time to catch Salmon by means thereof, shall be liable to a Penalty"— of such and such an amount.
Under the Second Schedule of the Bill that section is entirely deleted, and so the Amendment in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend, which has not been called, is of great importance to this Committee, because I can assure the Committee that this practice, which is known in Scotland as "sniggering," and which was referred to by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) is a matter of very great importance in a Bill entitled "Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Bill."

§ The Deputy-Chairman
I have not called that Amendment whether it is important or not.

§ Sir D. Robertson
But I am speaking to the question that the Clause stand part, Sir Charles. You have come to a decision about the Amendment and that must stay, but if, by this Bill—and I think I am correct in saying this, and the Lord Advocate will, of course, say whether I am or not—Section 17 of the 1868 Act is deleted it will be possible for men to carry on these illegal practices—as they will. That seems to me an extraordinary situation.

Mr. McNeil
I think I can give fairly satisfactory answers to the few points that have been raised, though they will not all be quite acceptable. I am indebted to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn), for his very clear statement on the subject. The Lord Advocate and I have gone into this subject very thoroughly, with, as I am sure my right hon. Friend will believe, anxiety to help him and to help his constituents, who are placed in difficulty.
We have not found a way by which we could so confine the practice and yet not open a floodgate to destroy the main purpose of the Bill. We cannot find a reasonable method which would give protection to the fisheries in Scotland, although no doubt that would be of benefit to my right hon. Friend's constituents. If, however, my right hon. Friend can, from his researches, in collaboration with his constituents, offer us any suggestion between now and Report stage we will naturally examine it very anxiously.
With regard to Berwick, the Bill, if approved, will be operative in precisely the areas defined. The definition will be found in Clause 20. I must confess that I am a little doubtful whether this will cover the dams and lades which are said to drain into the sea, because I suppose they are on that side of the Border.

§ Brigadier Thorp
The point is that there are reservoirs which run into the sea eventually, but they do not run via the Tweed. Do they come under this Bill? They are in the watershed, being reservoirs built for supplying towns on the Tyne. They flow out to the sea through the Tyne; they are inland waterways flowing out to the sea, but they do 180 not flow into the district of the Tweed, although they are actually situated there.

Mr. McNeil
I am assisted by my right hon. Friend who is very familiar with that part of the world, and who is very anxious that none of his fishing tributaries should be interfered with. It seems unlikely that they would be affected by the Bill. We are concerned with those tributaries draining into the Tweed, and I would think—although perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will give me time to confirm it—that they are not affected.
I share the anxieties of the hon. and gallant Member for Angus, South (Captain Duncan), about the use of the otter, but I think both he and the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) will find that their worries are covered by a proposed Amendment to Clause 22, which stands on the Order Paper in my name: in page 10, line 1, at the end to insert: with such bait or lure as is lawful at the passing of this Act. That means that rod and line is legal only so far as it is operated with lures which are normally accepted under the existing Act. This quite clearly excludes the otter, and another method about which the Committee will be very anxious—the use of a heavy hoop for sniggering. Both those will be excluded.
I am glad my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde) thinks that this is useful. I was indebted to him on Second Reading for drawing my attention to the incompleteness of the definition. I gather that there are other parts of the Bill on which he will not find my attitude so acceptable, but perhaps we shall be able to do something there, too. There is a very reasonable anxiety on the part of fishermen about getting permits at 7 a.m., but I think my hon. Friend will agree that it would be pushing me too hard to ask me to provide in the Bill that all the people of all the associations who issue permits to anglers should be under a statutory obligation to provide them by 7 a.m.
I hope—and I think it is a reasonable hope—that agents and factors and associations will see that a fisherman who complies with the Statute should have his access to the waters early in the morning facilitated, but I think we would tangle 181 ourselves up if we tried to have a statutory provision on the subject.

§ Mr. Charles Williams (Torquay)
I am not certain how far the Bill goes in connection with the otter. I understand that only the normal bait or lure may be used. Suppose an otter is used, or suppose a bigger piece of wood than is used with an ordinary trout line is floated down with several flies on it, or put out along the lochside. That is quite practicable, if one knows how to do it. Is that legal or not? In some places timber is floated down a lochside. It would be perfectly possible to float timber down a loch and to have behind it, especially with a good wind, a line with flies on it. Is that legal or illegal? I appreciate that this is a complicated subject which may not have been examined. I am not happy about the legal position.

Mr. McNeil
I think it was quite clear to the committee of inquiry that if timber with lines attached is floated down a river or loch that is certainly illegal. There are only two legal methods of fishing for salmon and sea trout and they are quite clearly defined in the Bill. I also give it as my opinion that if the hon. Gentleman were to display with an angling net the irresponsibility he sometimes displays in this Committee and trailed an otter with a line he would be behaving illegally.

§ Mr. Williams
I do not think there is any great harm in what I have said, and it could quite well be done with many legal instruments for catching fish. All I ask the right hon. Gentleman to do is to look at this between now and Report to see whether he cannot clarify the position.

Mr. McNeil
The hon. Gentleman disposes of rights in one of our northern counties and I have no doubt that people in the district will be gratefully encouraged by the free way in which he looks upon methods of fishing. I will, of course, look at this between now and Report stage, although I doubt very much whether I shall be able to add to what I have already said.