HC Deb 19 December 1969 vol 793 cc1806-23

2.17 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian)

The origin of this debate is a public meeting just four years ago in Bathgate when, following publication of the Hunter Committee's Report on Fishing, I advertised in the local Press in my constituency for a public meeting to hear the views of any of my constituents who wished to discuss these matters.

Somewhat to my surprise, 200 anglers turned up. Politicians will realise that any subject that can attract a meeting of 200 people is quite a subject. It is only the likes of the national superannuation scheme that attract these numbers to political meetings. Therefore, there could be no doubt of the interest of the people of Scotland in this subject. I hasten to say that it seemed at the meeting as if there were 199 different opinions, because the angling community will forgive me if I suggest that we are a somewhat fractious lot of people who have no unanimity of view on how our sport should be conducted.

I undertook to them that I would report back in two years as to what the findings and thinking of the Government would be. It is really to honour that promise that I applied for this Adjournment debate. If I talk about 199 different opinions, it is really because I understand the complexities that have led to the delay' in coming to conclusions on this issue. I should like my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State to know that I am receptive to the real difficulties that he faces because of the real differences of opinion, although he should explain to the angling community, and take the opportunity to do so during this debate, the honourable reasons why it has taken quite so long—four years.

I would say to the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell), who, I hope, will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that on the subject of delay I do not think that it lies in his mouth to criticise the Government, because in the Scottish Committee and elsewhere he is forever rebuking us for bulldozing measures through and there is in this matter a real balance between, on the one hand, bulldozing or, as I would call it, working to a timetable—I like working to a timetable in Whitehall and seeing Whitehall work to a timetable—and, on the other hand, the difficulties of consultation. I should, therefore, like to give credit—not out of loyalty—to my hon. Friends for the amount of consultation that they have carried out.

A lot of people in Scotland are interested, and that is the purpose of this Adjournment debate. But, in the last four years, there has appeared a new factor which in my view transcends all the recommendations of the Hunter Committee's Report. In three or four years' time, there may be no purpose in discussing Hunter. With the situation that is developing over Atlantic salmon, there may be a good deal of Hunter which will be sadly irrelevant.

While the ink was still wet on Hunter's Report, in the very year of its publication, large quantities of frozen Atlantic salmon began reaching European markets for the first time. It would be superfluous to go into the reasons for it. It was partly the discovery or re-discovery by the Greenlanders of the sea areas of salmon off Gotlab and Sukkatoppen, and partly the development of modern freezing techniques which became available to the Greenlanders. It is estimated that Greenland fishermen, even by 1965, were beginning to earn per head sums of the order of £5,000 between September and November when the salmon were being caught. In 1964, 1,593 metric tons of salmon were taken by nets off Greenland. To put it in perspective, that compares with 127 tons in 1961.

Nineteen sixty-five enter the Faroese, and 1967 enter the Danes. They brought with them these greatly perfected drift techniques developed on the island of Bornholm and elsewhere in the Baltic. So the Faroese and the Danes jumped on the bandwagon.

What was happening was the harvesting of immature fish with unprecedented efficiency. No one will object to the Eskimos taking a few fish from the sea, but it is a different matter when the Danes and the Swedes come with their efficient 20th century techniques to harvest immature fish. It is inconceivable that the fish could be taken simply dependent on Greenland rivers. There is only one small river in Greenland. There is hardly any doubt that these fish come from North America, Canada, New England, and the eastern side of the Atlantic.

The issue is now one for the Danes. I say with some sadness that it is a matter for regret that the country of Niels Bohr and many other eminent men of science should do this. It has been written in the British Press that not since the Vikings sacked and looted has the reputation of Denmark sunk so low in the international community. Many of the enlightened rulers of Denmark buried at Roskilde and elsewhere would turn in their graves if they saw the callousness with which the Danish Government is treating the situation. Something is rotten in the State of Denmark. Yes, something is rotten in the State of Denmark. It is not for the want of action by more enlightened Governments. The Danes even declined to attend an informal conference in London last spring.

There was a remarkable gathering together of the facts by Mr. Nicholas Evans in the Sunday Times. He observed facts known to me as a council member of the Fauna and Flora Reservation Society, that Denmark is milking a cow that she neither owns nor feeds.

Following representations by the British Government, the situation is not getting better. Indeed, it is getting worse. Although I do not claim verification for it, it has been estimated that something like twice the number of salmon have been taken off the coast of Greenland this year compared with last year. This is an example of unenlightened greed by the fishermen who are doing it and of total negligence by their Governments who allow them to do it. It is perhaps a matter of killing the goose which laid the golden eggs or, more appropriately, killing the salmon which laid the silver eggs.

The last public statement of the British Government came in the debate on 12th December. It really arose from an aside following the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson). On that occasion, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary at the Home Office said: The Government are well aware of the damage that could be caused if high seas fishing for salmon off the coast of Greenland and elsewhere is allowed to develop. At the instigation of the United Kingdom Government, the international organisation resposible for the conservation of fisheries passed a resolution recommending to member countries that high seas fishing for salmon should be banned. Unfortunately, the Governments of Denmark, Sweden and the Federal Republic of West Germany have not been able to accept these recommendations far a total ban, and their cooperation is essential. The Government are examining the situation to see what other aproaches would be sensible.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th December, 1969; Vol. 793, c. 850.] I do not believe in gunboat diplomacy, but I think that there is a case for confrontation in this instance. It would be a matter of my hon. Friends discussing with their advisers who are international lawyers whether fisheries protection vessels could not become involved. I do not suggest the sending of a cruiser, yet. But there is an issue here for the Fisheries Protection Fleet, and I would ask my hon. Friends to consult their advisers and other international academic lawyers such as Professor Lauterpacht.

It would be easy for this country, Canada and the United States, to consider the matter of sanctions. It may seem a bit unrealistic to apply sanctions, but the Danes would be pecularily sensitive on bacon, for reasons which I need not go into now.

There is certainly a case for considering the mutual withdrawal of ambassadors. In the summer, the Danish Ambassador, Herr Erling Kristiansen, issued a weak and long defensive statement of which an ambassador from a progressive people like Denmark should be ashamed. He tried to argue that there was no scientific proof. It was a very weak argument.

If I plead for making a maximum of fuss, it is because I believe that in Denmark, as in Britain, there is a sophisticated public opinion which will do something about the fact that the attitude of the Danish Government is bringing shame on their country.

So much for the Danes. To a lesser extent, the Swedes are also involved. For reasons totally unconnected with this subject, I am a great admirer of the new Prime Minister of Sweden. It is a country which has done extremely well in its attitudes towards chemical and biological warfare and many other aspects to do with conservation and all that is creditable. In this matter of Atlantic salmon, the attitude of the Swedish Government is totally discreditable. I would ask that in our relations, which are close between our Prime Minister and the Socialist Prime Minister of Sweden, some mention is made of this subject, if progress is not made through the normal channels. Indeed, I shall be putting down Questions to the Prime Minister in the new year precisely related to this subject, and there are various artful parliamentary ways in which one can do it.

Time is not on our side. Sir Hugh Mackenzie, the Director of the Atlantic Salmon Research Trust, another reputable scientist, has said: We have three years at most in which to end high seas fishing—otherwise Salmo Salar will have passed the point of no return to extinction. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Moray and Nairn will also be aware of the seriousness of the position, because on 16th October he asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the latest progress towards conclusion of an international agreement to prohibit or restrict fishing for salmon in the North Atlantic. My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) replied: At their meetings this summer, the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission and the International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries, accepted, by substantial majorities, recommendations for a ban on the fishery for Atlantic salmon outside national fisheries limits. Two countries have submitted memoranda setting out their objections to the recommendations, but it is not made clear what the final outcome will be. In the meantime, the position is being kept under review."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th October, 1969; Vol. 788, c. 130.] Well, often the phrase "the position is being kept under review" in Whitehall terminology means "not very much in particular is being done." I say to my hon. Friend that I hope that he will bring it to the notice of the Foreign Secretary that time is not on our side.

All right, I recognise that the Danes may have problems, but those of us who have flown over Greenland, as I have, know what kind of country it is. It may be quite true that the Danes are paying something like £1,000 per year in subsidies to the Greenlanders, but that is no reason why, for any short-term commercial proposition, the Danes should try in this way to make the country viable. This is a matter which ought to be raised at the United Nations, because there are people in the scientific community who really feel that by its actions the progressive and civilised country of Denmark is in danger of becoming something of an international leper in the scientific community.

The second part of what I have to say simply concerns the Hunter Report itself. It would be most helpful to hon. Members and, indeed, to those anglers up and down Scotland who will be studying the OFFICIAL REPORT of this debate, as many Scottish anglers will, if my hon. Friend would number his replies which he gives to the specific questions of which he has been given notice and which I now will ask.

The first question is, what is the Government's thinking on a practical system of management under which the right numbers of fish are caught in the ways which bring the greatest advantage? I should like to know the Government's thinking on this. I do not necessarily go along with Hunter on it.

Secondly, I should like to know what order of resources is available from the Treasury. My personal view, shared by some, though by no means all, anglers, is that the priority use of resources is the stocking and improvement of poor waters on some kind of agreed financial basis involving the Government and owners and angling interests. I think there is scope for agreement here—for an agreed and not an expensive solution.

Thirdly, I should like to know what has been done since the publication of Hunter—because I realise that something has been done—to encourage trout farming in specially constructed rearing stations, and, in particular, what has been done to develop the rainbow trout.

I should like to know what is the Government's reaction to area boards—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay)

Order. The hon. Member appears to be asking a number of questions which can be dealt with only by legislative action, so the Minister would be out of order if he were to reply to them.

Mr. Dalyell

I had a letter, a very courteous one, from the Table Office, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and subsequently discussed it there, and I may say that there are two precedents in Adjournment debates in which the man who initiated an Adjournment debate did not ask for legislative action but, indeed, asked for the status quo. I realise that the borderline between legislative and administrative action is a fairly blurred one. I would put it to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that in considering, for instance, the Scottish Anglers' Trust I am on the blurred right side of administrative action as opposed to demanding legislation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I apprecite the difficulty of the hon. Member, and also the difficulty of the Chair, but it seems to me that some of the questions which the hon. Member has already asked could be dealt with not by administrative but only by legislative action. I hope that his future questions will be in accordance with that Ruling.

Mr. Dalyell

That rules out what I would have liked to have asked about area boards and the Anglers' Trust, but I hope to be in order when I ask about administrative action to create a system of fishery wardens, and what the Government are going to do on the at the moment exaggerated but nevertheless increasing problems of the poisoning of fish.

I should like to know about the Government's reflections on rod licences and, indeed, a rod licensing system.

My ninth question is simply to ask about pollution and what steps the Secretary of State is actually taking as a result of recommendation No. 97 of Hunter and the Prime Minister's statements on 13th October and 11th December on pollution as it affects fishing.

Finally, will my hon. Friend explain to the angling community the doubtless understandable reasons to the anglers of Scotland why it has taken the Government so long to react.

That is my case.

2.36 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Campbell (Moray and Nairn)

Let me first congratulate the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) upon having applied for a debate on this subject, and also upon his persistence in pursuing the recommendations of the Hunter Report and inquiring about what is being done.

The hon. Gentleman spoke about the Atlantic fishery, which, of course, has caused concern to many in Scotland, including myself, because of its threat to the future existence of our salmon stocks. I shall not follow him on that subject. I very much hope, as he knows, that agreement will be reached amongst the fishing countries concerned, in order to control fishing in the North Atlantic and to conserve the stocks of salmon for the countries concerned.

The Hunter Report was presented to the Government over four years ago. Of course, I shall not discuss any proposals for legislation that there are in it because that would be out of order in this debate, but I do take the opportunity of asking the Government about administrative action which they have been taking and are taking in their Departments to deal with this Report.

What has been surprising, I think to both sides of the House, has been the Government's silence so far, and what I ask the Government to do today is, to tell us about the Government's intentions. I think the Minister knows that the attitude I have consistently taken since the Report was published has been that it can be divided into two parts. There are parts of the Report which deal with angling, and other parts which deal with the commercial fishing for migratory fish. I accept straightaway that the second subject is one on which very far reaching decisions may have to be taken, and I will say straightaway that I agree with the hon. Member that there is no question of using a bulldozer here. I have never complained about the silence of the Government over their final decision on that point. My inquiries have been about whether the pilot schemes which have been recom- mended have started or not. I believe, as the Hunter Report, in its first paragraph to its conclusions, paragraph 343, points out, that the subject can be divided into two, and that administrative decisions can be taken soon—and should be taken by now, in my opinion, on the angling side, while the other, more far reaching questions, are still being considered.

The fish which are discussed in the Hunter Report fall into two categories, the migratory and the non-migratory. The migratory fish, salmon and sea trout, are those which have part of their life cycle in the high seas but have to return to our rivers to breed. This is why the conservation element is so vital. Salmon and sea trout are important resources to Scotland. It is not always understood that the fishings for them are rated, and local authorities gain considerable revenue from this resource, which makes quite a large contribution to local government finance. If, as the hon. Member feared, the stocks of salmon were to be vastly reduced or to disappear because of stupidity in the North Atlantic fisheries, this would mean a financial loss to Scotland. Rating is often overlooked, but the benefits from the ordinary commercial and tourist sides also add up to a considerable amount.

The Hunter Report recommendations for migratory fish are far-reaching and would lead virtually to the abolition of netting in sea waters along the coasts and at river mouths. This would mean, according to the present estimate, that the jobs of about 900 men in Scotland would be affected. If this decision were taken, presumably that would happen gradually, but no hasty decision should be taken upon it.

The Hunter Committee recommended also that pilot schemes should be introduced. This is a purely administrative matter on which I ask the Government to give us information. Paragraph 88 suggested that there should he a commercial scheme, and paragraph 89 that there should be a research scheme. It may be that these have been started, but I hope the Government will tell us whether they have embarked on this administrative action which must be carried out before a final decision is taken.

I come to the non-migratory fish which are, in the main, brown trout. The report proposes that there should be an organisation to make the best use of this resource, which is a matter not only of great concern to angling clubs and associations in Scotland but an important element in the tourist industry. Paragraph 113 of the Report sums this up by pointing out that if fishing for brown trout is unorganised and unrestricted there is no worthwhile fishing. I am not myself an angler, but I am aware of the sport which it provides and the interest which so many people have in coming to Scotland, including hon. Members on both sides of the House from England and Wales. They, as visitors to Scotland like to have a trout rod with them in the car and hope that they may get a few days fishing as part of their holiday. They are ready to pay a modest sum of money in return for a reasonable assurance of catching some worthwhile fish. This is important for the Scottish Tourist Board. More and more visitors to Scotland are coming in the summer hoping to get some fishing, without having to organise it a long time beforehand, and without wanting to go in for the expensive salmon and sea trout fishing. This is what the angling side of the Hunter Report is about.

I have consistenly suggested to the Government that this part could be separated and that they could be taking administrative action now. This view is fully supported by paragraph 343, the first paragraph of the Hunter Committee's recommendations, in which it is said that better organisation of angling could be achieved in a relatively short time, but that the questions to be decided concerning the commercial fishings for migratory fish would probably take longer.

It is written in the Hunter Report that the one subject could be separated and dealt with earlier and should not be held up because of the far-reaching and complicated decisions that have to be taken on the second subject, that is to say, the commercial fishing for migratory fish. I ask the Government to take their administrative decisions and to make their announcements soon on the angling side of the Hunter recommendations. I agree that commercial fishing for migratory fish is a very difficult subject which requires careful decisions, but here I would like to know from the Government whether they are doing anything about the pilot schemes suggested and any other administrative action that they are now taking or intend to take in the near future.

2.46 p.m.

Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland)

I intend to take no more than two minutes of the Minister's time, in view of the many points which have been put to him by my hon. Friend and by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell). The debate has been a useful one, highlighting the three major problems associated with salmon and trout fishing in Scotland—access, conservation and development.

I want to say a word about access, to which less attention has been paid by the two hon. Members who have spoken. It is because of the relative difficulty that tourists and people living in the Highlands of Scotland experience in gaining access to fishings throughout Scotland that the question of deciding fairly soon on ownership is imperative. While there are angling clubs in certain parts of the country which make fishings readily available, proprietors in other areas operate an extremely exclusive right. That is why enormous concern is felt in my constituency about the proposal of the North of Scotland Hydroelectric Board to return the fishings on the River Shin to private ownership.

The North of Scotland Hydro-electric Board was set up, with Tom Johnston as its first chairman, for the purpose of providing not only power but an important social service. Tom Johnston conceived the fishings as being one of the services which the Board should offer. I regard the decision of the Board as utterly disgraceful, and I sincerely hope that my hon. Friend and his hon. Friends, will prevail upon the Board to withdraw this property from the market.

I assure my hon. Friend that this matter goes way beyond narrow party political considerations. Such a decision would be universally condemned throughout the Highlands, and the unanimous reaction in the Highlands to the proposals underlines the urgent need for the Government to come to a decision on the question of ownership.

Dalyell

Would my hon. Friend not agree that this goes against the whole trend by which some of us hope the Hydro-Electric Board and the Forestry Commission will be enabled to take administrative action to further the interests of the angling community?

Mr. MacLennan

I entirely accept that.

2.50 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan)

The debate has ranged rather more widely than I had anticipated. Most of the points did not emerge on aspects of the Hunter Report itself, although I recognise that the important question which was raised on the Greenland Fisheries was in the background arising out of the problem of drift netting in Scotland.

It is equally true, as my hon. Friend was told by the Chair, that I cannot deal with a great number of the specific matters raised or attempted to be raised because of the need for legislation. I will be as helpful as I can to hon. Members, but they must accept that limitation.

First of all, I should like to deal with the question of time. This is not the first time that I have had to deal in the House with the question of delay on the Hunter Report. Indeed, it seems to be a familiar question in Scottish Question time. My hon. Friend for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has put down something like 39 Questions at one time or another on this matter.

My hon. Friend recognises the complexity of the situation. He said that 200 anglers turned up at a meeting he held. I recognise the importance of this problem to the anglers in Scotland and the increasing interest in this matter—and that 199 different views were expressed at that meeting. We have to consult with various bodies and have gone ahead in this matter. I was glad that my hon. Friend gave us some credit for the amount of consultation. We have not found an altogether dissimilar situation. We have had written evidence and have had consultation, sometimes on more than one occasion, with 120 bodies. It is right that if we are to do a major job we should do it properly.

The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) said that we should pick out one or two points on which we could proceed now and leave the major points until later. We have always regarded this problem as a unity. We do not think that it should be dealt with in a piecemeal way. Once we have ended our consultations and considerations and announced our view we can then proceed stage by stage with a plan.

Both of the points suggested by the hon. Gentleman require legislation. On the matter of pilot schemes for commercial trapping, since no one in the fishing industry has come forward as a volunteer it would be necessary to take powers before we could do anything about the matter. It would be wrong in handling a basic problem to clutter up the situation with legislation. This would neither make for good legislation, nor would it be in the interests of Scotland when we have so much other important legislation to introduce.

Mr. Gordon Campbell

This is an important point and two questions arise. First, does it mean that the Government do not agree with Recommendation 343 of the Hunter Committee which suggested that the legislation should be in two parts? Secondly, the question of a trap is not connected with the brown trout fishing which is the part upon which I recommend early action.

Mr. Buchan

I recognise that. The matter can be separated in this way. It has been my view from the beginning that we would want to have the concept, as a unity, then to announce it, and from that point to proceed to legislation. I do not exclude the possibility that in that way it may be carried out in a piecemeal fashion, but I am saying that there should be a single concept. The complexity is great and there are a number of problems involved, but there is an inter-relationship between them. Therefore I do not feel that the matter can be undertaken in the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

Coming to a point which does not require legislation but on which I was asked to give an answer, there was the question of a trout farm for rainbow trout. There are some 10 or 11 freshwater farms in Scotland which produce fish for restocking. There has been one case of natural spawning of rainbow trout. The normal experience is that regular restocking is necessary.

On the matter of pollution, the existing bailiffs have adequate powers under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) Scotland Act, 1951. That Act contains special provisions in the way of penalties and powers of search of suspects which can be invoked on the more serious offences such as the use of poison for illegal fishing or poaching. Similarly the existing bodies, among them the River Purification Boards, also possess powers and we are keeping in close contact with scientific opinion on the matter of pollution.

I turn to some specific points. One was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). He suggested that we should take a total view about access, ownership and so on. The difficulty in giving him an answer now is that this would be fundamental in any proposals brought forward for legislation. What is clear is that the most important single issue is how to improve the fishing in Scotland and to make more fishing available for the ordinary angler. In other words, the access to fishing waters by anglers of all kinds must be increased. We need more waters whether public or private, at reasonable cost, whether for local or tourist interests. Private rights must not be allowed to stand in the way of the fullest possible exploitation of Scottish angling facilities in the interests of the Scottish people.

Secondly, this increased access must be secured in a properly controlled and regulated manner so that the quality of fishing is not harmed by increased exploitation. There must be a proper development of resources so that the potential asset which they represent can be fully realised. I put these in no particular order of priority but they are the kernel of my thinking on this matter.

I should like to deal with two specific points which were raised. I know how strongly my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland feels on the matter of the possible sale of fishings by the Scottish Hydro Electric Board on the River Shin. The Board's view, as I understand it, is that its first duty is to its consumers and that it must realise some of its assets such as fishings that are not producing an economic return. We for our part must face up to the implications of the general policy which we have laid down for the nationalised industries. On the one hand, we expect them to reach certain financial targets and yet on the other hand to keep their charges to those using the services as low as they possibly can.

The House may have noted that in paragraph 121 of the final report the Hunter Committee recommended that certain fisheries owned by public bodies including electricity boards should be leased to a scottish anglers' trust at nominal rents. But they went on to say that this should not apply to salmon fishings which had been purchased by a revenue producing organisation at a considerable cost, with the clear implication that these should secure an economic return. That is precisely the position in this case.

This is a difficult matter, and I sympathise with what my hon. Friend said and his strength of feeling. But I must make it crystal clear that the question of whether or not to dispose of fishings is for the commercial judgment of the board. It is not an appropriate matter for my hon. Friend the Secretary of State to give a direction on. It is true that the Board agreed some time ago at my right hon. Friend's suggestion, to defer the sale of fishings on the Conon and Blackwater and we appreciate their co-operation over this matter. I must however repeat that decisions of this nature are for the board alone to take. I turn to the important question raised by my hon. Friend in connection with what we call the Greenland fisheries,—high sea drift net fishing for salmon. I must say that I deplore the strength of metaphor used in his analysis of the situation, interesting as some of them were. It is an important matter and one of considerable concern to us. My hon. Friend asked what the Government were doing about the threat to Atlantic salmon which is posed by the development of Greenland fishing, and referred to an article in last weekend's Sunday Times which has aroused a great deal of interest.

As I said earlier, the Greenland fisheries were mentioned in passing in the Hunter Report in which the reference was mainly to the fixed net coastal fisheries rather than the high sea fishery which has subsequently developed. But it was part of the same problem—that of salmon stocks.

Since my hon. Friend has raised the matter, I must comment on it. It has been causing the Government a great deal of concern in recent years. But I am glad to tell hon. Members today that it was largely at the instigation and the initiative of this country that the two international commissions responsible for considering fishery conservation matters, namely the North East Atlantic and the North West Atlantic Fisheries Commissions after detailed discussions both passed recommendations earlier this year for a complete ban on fishing for Atlantic salmon outside national fishery limits.

This is an indication that many other countries share our views and this is heartening. We regret the fact that for a variety of reasons Denmark, Sweden and West Germany found themselves unable to accept these recommendations. The House will know that in this international sphere nations cannot be forced to act against their will. Both conventions, the North-East and the North-West, result from international agreement and dissenting nations can opt out. Under the procedure of the North-East Commission's arrangements it is open to any country to object formally to a recommendation. If three nations object the recommendation is not binding on any one country.

Under the North-West Commission's arrangements a recommendation has no effect unless and until it is formally accepted by all the member Governments. The result of an objection under that arrangement is to deprive the recommendation of any force. It is a very difficult situation. It involves a considerable number of nations and is an international matter which can only be solved by international agreement. We must consult with like-minded countries about the steps which should be taken now.

It is noteworthy and pleasant that Denmark, when it lodged its objection, said it was prepared to discuss other con servation measures short of a complete ban.

We shall give careful thought to this and to various measures that can be invoked, and we shall be undertaking consultations as soon as we can. I can only add that it might be difficult on the evidence available to us, to accept all that has been said in the Press about the danger to Atlantic salmon as a species. I do not doubt the potential danger from an unrestricted growth of these High Seas fisheries and the harmful consequences for us and other salmon-producing countries that could result.

Mr. Gordon Campbell

I appreciate that I am asking this question at short notice, but can the hon. Gentleman say to what extent Denmark and West Germany have salmon rivers themselves.

Mr. Buchan

I would not like to give an absolute answer offhand, but I think that they do not have such rivers to such a great extent. I will look into the matter and write to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Dalyell

Does my hon. Friend dispute the opinion of Sir Hugh Mackenzie, Director of the Atlantic Salmon Research Trust, who reports that, in his view, we have three years at the most before we shall reach the point of extinction, if we do not alter our fishing methods? Do my hon. Friend's advisers give him a different view?

Mr. Buchan

I am well aware of the Mackenzie statement. I said that there had been talk in the Press about the danger of over-fishing in the Atlantic for salmon. We have the task of solving the problem. It may be helpful if hon. Members and others who are interested in the subject draw our attention to these factors in the starkest possible way.

As I must deal with this problem, I assure my hon. Friend that I have no intention of expanding on any alarmist statements, from whichever quarter they may come. I accept expert scientific judgments, but I am not in a position to say what is the precise answer to this problem. We must try to reach the sort of agreement that will ensure that this problem is solved.

For all these reasons I have spoken as carefully and as seriously as I possibly could about this issue. I am pleased to say that the Scottish salmon interests are taking a balanced and sensible view of the matter. They recognise the difficulties involved and the Scottish Salmon Net Fishing Association has been quoted as having confidence in our handling of the negotiations. I am pleased to have the Association's backing. Indeed, it was confirmed in the recent discussions that we had with representatives of many salmon organisations. I appreciate this confidence and, in turn, I assure those concerned that we will continue with our efforts to secure a sensible solution to this extremely difficult problem.

Forward to