HC Deb 29 January 1969 vol 776 cc1467-83

10.1 p.m.

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

I beg to move That the Salmon and Migratory Trout (Prohibition of Drift-Net Fishing) (Extension) Order 1968, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th December, be approved. Before I deal with the reasons for asking the House to approve this Order, which is in substantially the same form as the corresponding 1966 Order which was approved in February, 1967, I should perhaps briefly recall the background and purpose of the Order. In 1962 hon. Members opposite, when they were the Government, became alarmed at the sudden development, and rapid growth, of a drift-net fishery for salmon in the sea off the Scottish east coast.

This began in 1960 when 9,000 salmon were taken, all of them off the Tweed. In two years' time the activity had increased to such an extent that some 115,000 salmon were taken. This was such a big additional toll on Scottish stocks of salmon—and there was every sign that it would expand still further—that the Government of the day, having first given the fishermen some 13 months' notice of their intention, prohibited this method of catching salmon in a defined area around Scotland.

The prohibition lasted, in the first place for three years, and it has been extended since then on three occasions by Orders like this one. On each of the first two occasions the extension was for one year and on the third occasion—one that I remember vividly in 1967—it was for two years. The current Order expires on 15th February and the sole purpose of that now before the House is to maintain the existing position by carrying forward the existing prohibition until 1971—again two years' prohibition.

It was no easy decision for us to adopt and extend the policy that was first taken by the party opposite. I made it very plain when I spoke in the debate two years ago that I took no pleasure in the prohibition, and my feelings have not altered with the passage of time. Yet it seems to me both right and inescapable that the prohibition should be extended until 1971.

There are two main reasons for this. The first arises from the Report of the Hunter Committee. As hon. Members know, the Committee investigated the growth of the drift-net fishery and its implications and considered whether it could be allowed to continue on a limited scale, but was unable to devise a practicable scheme which could be enforced. It recommended therefore that the prohibition should be made permanent. This recommendation, however, is only one of a number of recommendations about permissible methods of fishing for salmon, and it cannot really be decided in isolation. We are not yet in a position to say what action it would be right to take on the Hunter Report as a whole and we continue to think it best, therefore, to maintain the ban for a further limited period, and so to preserve the status quo for the time being.

I am, perhaps, pre-empting the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) with his battery of quotations. I must say frankly that I had hoped we would be further forward in our consideration of the Hunter Report than we are. The position, however, remains that, as I have said several times in answer to Questions, our consideration of it is not yet complete, and I cannot say when we shall be able to announce our proposals.

Let me, however, say two things. First, we have made progress since we last debated an Order of this kind. Since then we have had the extensive series of meetings and discussions with interested organisations which I foreshadowed then. This has helped us on a number of aspects of the Report, even if at the same time it revealed even more clearly than before what a very wide variety of opinions are held on it among those concerned with salmon and trout fishing. We have also had the benefit of hon. Members' views in the debate upstairs in Scottish Grand Committee in July, 1967, which again showed a remarkable diversity of opinion. Secondly, I can assure the House that the Report has most certainly not been pigeon-holed; we are continuing the work on it even now to come up with right solution. The first main reason for extending the drift-net ban, therefore, is to await final conclusions on the Hunter Report. Until we take final decisions the ban remains temporary. The second main reason is one that has increased greatly in prominence since our last debate, namely the growth in catching salmon at Greenland, both in coastal nets and, more especially, from drift-net boats operating in the Davis Strait and elsewhere. The House will be aware of the very rapid development in these fisheries. The coastal fishery reached a peak in 1964, when about 1,500 metric tons of salmon were taken in it. Just as ominously, the catch of the high seas drift-net fishery expanded between 1965 and 1967 from 36 metric tons to 305 metric tons, and the indications are that the high seas catch in 1968 may by itself have been upwards of 500 tons. There are widespread fears about the effect which this toll may have on stocks in the countries whose rivers produce the salmon, including, especially, our own in Scotland.

We are, therefore, greatly concerned at the development of this high seas fishery, for, while there are physical limitations affecting the number of nets which may be set in the Greenland coastal fishery these do not apply to the high seas fishery, which takes place in international waters, can be engaged in by vessels from any country, and is therefore potentially even more damaging. Moreover, as hon. Members will know, high seas fisheries for salmon both by drift-net and by line—some hon. Members will remember the incident last year—have been developing in other parts of the Atlantic much nearer our shores. It would be quite unrealistic to expect that, as fishermen of other countries find out more about the feeding grounds and migration routes of salmon in the sea, as is almost inevitable, these fisheries will not spread and increase in intensity. And unlike the fisheries off Greenland, which do not affect fish that would be grilse on their return to fresh water, these newer fisheries may affect our catches of grilse as well as large salmon.

The Government have been, and are, doing all they can to secure a ban on the Greenland high seas fishery, or at least, a limitation of fishing effort so that it does not continue to expand. Effective action, however, depends on securing international agreement—the matter is not within our own control as was the drift-net fishery we are discussing under the Order which was engaged in by United Kingdom vessels in Scottish waters—and so far it has not been possible in the discussions in the International Commission for the North-West Atlantic Fisheries—I.C.N.A.F.—to obtain this agreement or to persuade those countries whose nationals are profiting from the fishery that dangers exist and that some limitation is essential. Last year, however, a step forward was achieved when the Commission passed a compromise resolution which called the attention of member Governments to the serious concern expressed on the matter, and recommended them to consider urgently the desirability of preventing any increase in high seas fishing for salmon for the time being.

We shall be following up this resolution both in I.C.N.A.F. and elsewhere. The connection with the Order under discussion tonight will be clear. There will, I believe, be no dispute over the desirability of ending, or at least limiting, this and other potential high seas drift-net fisheries for salmon. One of the arguments—and I think it is a cogent one—on which we have based our case is that sensible management of our, or any other country's, salmon resources depends on control of the stocks native to each river system, and that this is not possible if salmon are exposed to indiscriminate capture in the sea, where their origin is indeterminate.

The Hunter Committee laid great stress on this question of management, and the Government could hardly pursue their policy in the international field if at the same time they were to end the ban on indiscriminate drift-netting for salmon by our own nationals in the waters round our shores in a fishery which showed every sign of rapid expansion six or seven years ago. For this reason also, therefore, we see no alternative but to extend the ban for a further period; and against this double background I commend the Order to the House.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Stodart (Edinburgh, West)

I have a feeling, Mr. Speaker, that you must be getting familiar with this subject. It is becoming quite an old chestnut.

I was extremely disappointed with the speech of the Under-Secretary of State. It will be greeted, I think, with disappointment by hon. Members opposite, particularly, perhaps, in view of the cri de coeur of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) the other day when he said, "After three long years, why no action?". The answer is the complete, utter and abject failure of the Government to do anything but talk about this matter.

I do not criticise the Government for failing to come to an agreement about Greenland, because that is not a matter which can be decided unilaterally. I accept the efforts which the Under-Secretary of State says are being made about it. But, as he pointed out, this controversy is very nearly seven years old. Dating from 9th July, 1962, it has been the subject of five debates, and the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), whom I am pleased, as usual, to see here tonight, played a leading part in the first three of them. He laid himself open to a good deal of badinage which he has been good enough to take with his usual good nature. But we are once more discussing an extension of the ban on drift netting. It is obvious that the Government are drifting helplessly and are unable to come to any decision.

In February, 1965 the Government had received only the interim Report of Lord Hunter's Committee. They felt that they must have the final Report, which was due six months later. I agreed with that entirely, and we accepted the 12 months' postponement. In February, 1966, a further year was asked for to give everyone concerned a chance of commenting and making representations. It was then that all those rather vacuous assurances were given about full and urgent consideration by the Government. After we had accepted that it was reasonable that the Government should await Lord Hunter's final Report, the Government were given a year for full and urgent consideration.

Then we had that memorable night to which the mind of the Under-Secretary of State will easily go back, when he last asked the House to give the Government not one year, but two years. I shall remind him of four things he said on that occasion. First, he said: We make no apology for continuing the ban for two years because we prefer to come up with the correct answers in two years rather than rush this through … Secondly, he said: … it is with very little joy that we have to keep this ban for another two years "— and in saying that he emphasised his first point

Thirdly, he said: … by stretching this to two years, we hope … to bring in legislation in that time. Fourthly, he said something which seems to me significant now: As to whether the ban should be permanent or not, I must stress that that question has not been decided."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th February, 1967; Vol. 740, c. 1552–6.] Does that hold tonight? Are the Government still in two minds about whether the ban should be made permanent? It is clear that two years ago the Government wanted to have legislation before us by now. Why have they not produced it?

The Under-Secretary told us in the last debate on this matter in the Scottish Grand Committee in July, 1967, that all the meetings and consultations were concluded and that the Government were considering what action to take. He said, however, that he thought that that Committee should discuss the matter before a final conclusion was reached. And so discuss it we did.

We had two and a half hours of animated discussion of the subject. I remember saying in that debate that if breeding stocks of what, I think, everybody recognises as being an extremely valuable national asset were to be built up, it was essential that fish had to be counted going up the river if it was practical and economic to do so. Therefore, this must entail some kind of a trap.

In reply to that, the hon. Gentleman mentioned many of the practical difficulties—the cost, the construction difficulties, the unsuitability of many of the rivers and the risk of damage to banks and the flooding of land round about. He expressed the view that it was bad to inhibit the movement of salmon in and out of rivers and he drew attention to the possibility of unemployment resulting from all this.

Despite what the hon. Gentleman has just said, however, about the diversity of opinions expressed in the Scottish Grand Committee that morning, he used these words: There seems to be general agreement that we can do with a practical investigation of possible methods of operating a commercial trap for a period."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Grand Committee, 18th July, 1967; c. 460.] Those words were uttered 18 months ago. I must ask the hon. Gentleman whether any such practical investigation has been made. If not, are plans afoot for it to be started? If they are not, they certainly ought to be on foot. Indeed, such an experiment should, in my view, have taken place because, until it does, no worth-while conclusion can be arrived at.

In his speech to the House two years ago, the hon. Gentleman posed the question whether drift netting had to be banned altogether. In the Scottish Grand Committee, I said that I felt that it would have to be if we were determined to build up stocks to their maximum potential. It would be possible to allow a certain amount of drift netting, perhaps, at the present time under licence if it were found that a figure inside the river of a little below the maximum would suffice. Again, however, one cannot make a final decision until one knows how the trapping experiment will work. That is why information about a trapping experiment should have been available to us by now, which is three and a half years after the final Hunter Report was produced.

The purpose of all these extensions—one in 1965, another in 1966, a third in 1967 and a fourth tonight—is that the Government should be enabled to make up their mind on this matter, but they cannot come to a conclusion without a practical investigation of trapping first. The Scottish Grand Committee was asked for its advice and that is the advice which, the hon. Gentleman says, it gave.

One thing is absolutely clear. The Government are asking tonight for a two-year extension. This means that on past performance it will fall to my right hon. and hon. Friends to take the next step. That is as certain as night follows day. I assure the House that we shall come to an early decision one way or the other. We shall not waste the time of the House every year or every other year. If it is feasible to have a practical trapping experiment, we shall do so, because without such an experiment we cannot make progress which is in any way worth while. It is progress which has been utterly lacking from all that the Government have been trying to do during the past five years.

10.20 p.m.

Mr. George Willis (Edinburgh, East)

I, too, am disappointed that it has been found necessary to introduce the Order and to delay further any action on this matter. Although I assure my hon. Friend that I appreciate all the difficulties, nevertheless, I know from the experience of the fishermen in my constituency that this matter causes them concern. They have felt that for a great many years they have suffered under a ban which affected no one else.

After having spent considerable sums of money on nets and having incurred other expenditure, which they have probably been able to recoup by certain expedients which they have adopted, they are discontented at having been kept waiting for a decision for such a long time. The sooner a decision can be made the better it will be. Fortunately, the inshore fleet has had four, five or six years of very good fishing. Had they been bad years such as we have had before, then the issue would have been raised in a much stronger way. The fishermen want to know how they will ultimately stand. It now looks as though they will not get an answer for another two years, which is an unconscionably long time.

I tend to agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) about the necessity for trapping experiments at the river mouth. Salmon cannot be controlled unless it is known what goes up the rivers and it cannot always then be controlled. I understand that two years ago it was intended to make an experiment although I do not know whether the experiment has yet been started. I would remind the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West that the Government of his party made a decision about this without any inquiry, experiment or anything else. They just decided to impose a ban with little information apart from figures of catches over a short time.

Mr. Stodart

It is surely to our credit that we showed much more perspicacity than did the Opposition of that day.

Mr. Willis

I very much doubt that. The hon. Gentleman has now pressed for experiments and inquiries, but the Government of his party made a decision without the benefit of experiments, and it was only because of pressure from this side of the House, which was then the other side of the House, that a committee of inquiry was appointed. Otherwise, it would have been bundled through the other place by a number of backwoodsmen who descended upon Parliament to stop the catching of their salmon by drift-net fishermen. Some of them have not since been seen in the other place.

I think that an experiment is most necessary. It is necessary, too, for the Government to reach a decision as quickly as possible. There are not many fishermen among my constituents, but in my conversations with them, always they ask me, "What is to happen about drift netting for salmon? What is the position? When will a decision be made? When shall be know where we stand? When shall we be put in the same position as others who catch salmon?"

At present, a small minority have a monopoly to take salmon before they reach our rivers. It is guaranteed to them. There are rules and regulations about catches, but it is a very profitable monopoly. That does not seem to be right.

While I accept that this Order is necessary, I would ask my hon. Friend to use what influence he has with the Government to get a firm decision about the matter as soon as possible.

10.25 p.m.

Sir John Gilmour (Fife, East)

The right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) illustrated very well how the situation about drift netting for salmon has changed over the years. Whatever doubts were expressed at the time, the original Order banning drift netting was introduced, quite rightly, on the basis of the information then available, which was fairly straightforward. It was simply that, if salmon were caught in the sea before they had a chance of moving up rivers to spawn, stocks would be depleted.

What the Under-Secretary of State is up against is that he is talking about a situation which we ourselves do not control. The fact is that salmon are being caught in waters which are outside our control, and we are not masters in our own house. In view of that, the right hon. Gentleman was quite wrong to assess the situation in the way that he did. He was quite happy to ban drift netting for salmon by our own fishermen, which would deplete stocks in our own rivers. It is only now that he and his right hon. and hon. Friends realise that this is a matter which has to be dealt with internationally. The fact that a Conservative Government had to take the first action only illustrates the need to alert everyone to the dangers which salmon fishing would have faced if action had not been taken.

We are now in a position where, unless we get international agreement, any licensing arrangement that we make for drift netting in a small way would not be worth the paper on which it was written. The whole stock of salmon could be swept away by other nationals in waters over which we have no control. We need to take much tougher action. We must decide whether we are prepared to accept landings of fish in this country from the nationals of other countries who take salmon out of the sea in such a way as to deplete the stocks in our rivers and, incidentally, the stocks in Canadian and Norwegian rivers.

This has to be dealt with on an international basis because, as I have said, it is matter in which we are not masters in our own house—

Mr. Speaker

It may be, but the hon. Gentleman must come to the Order, which prohibits drift netting.

Sir J. Gilmour

Mr. Speaker, I apologise if I have strayed out of order.

My point is that, whether salmon swim up the Tees or some other river which is outside our control, unless the ban on drift-netting can be negotiated on an international basis any Order that we seek to make is not worth the paper on which is is printed. We can prohibit drift-netting for salmon round our own coasts, but if we do not reach international agreement the salmon will be swept out of the seas and will not be there to come up our rivers.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sunderland)

At this stage in this many year long debate I think that we must have a certain amount of sympathy for the Under-Secretary of State in his predicament of having to come before the House yet again to explain what appears to be inaction by the Government in dealing with this problem.

The hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) has rightly drawn attention to the major problems bedevilling the future of the Atlantic salmon. However, it seems to me that, although my neighbour's house may be on fire and that fire may spread to my house, if there is a fire in my house I must put it out regardless. This is the situation with which we are faced in the drift-netting of salmon off our own coasts.

It would be wrong for the Government to await the conclusion of an international agreement before making up their mind whether the drift-netting ban should be extended or removed. Such an excuse was not offered in the past. Although the problem has been understood more clearly in the two years that have elapsed since the House considered the previous Order, the explanation offered two years ago was of a wholly different kind. The Government then took the view that it would be wrong to change the position about drift-netting for salmon until they had made up their mind on the Hunter Committee's report about the control and management of salmon stocks in this country.

The Government appear to have made no advances on this matter, despite the fact that it has been thrashed out both in this House and in the Scottish Grand Committee with, I venture to say, rather less disagreement than has been suggested by my hon. Friend—at least, on this side of the House. My hon. Friend has had the benefit of advice from the Scottish Council of the Labour Party, which unanimously agreed that control of salmon stocks could best be handled by taking the salmon fishings into public ownership. I commend this advice to my hon. Friend.

The House has heard the arguments for and against this Order ad nauseam. I have sympathy not only for my hon. Friend in this predicament, but also for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you have sat through similar debates on a number of previous occasions. It is time that my hon. Friend admitted that it is not so much a question of conflicting opinions about this matter as the difficulty of taking the kind of sweeping steps necessary to make available the salmon fishings of Scotland to all who would enjoy them—difficulties chiefly of finance, not of principle, nor, for that matter, of science or of management.

I hope that this rather lachrymose debate will nevertheless encourage my hon. Friend in his apparently endless task of solving what is, although important, a relatively minor matter.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith (North Angus and Mearns)

The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) has given us his usual line about what he thinks should be done about salmon fishing in Scotland. We should be interested in the Under-Secretary's comments, since last time we had no specific replies to these points. I wonder whether the representations of the Council of the Scottish Labour Party and the others that he has considered in relation to the Hunter Committee Report have had any effect.

One thing which has been stressed in these continual debates is the feeling of the inshore fishermen that they are one section of the salmon fishing industry which is picked upon to be restricted in fishing. But, taking a longer view, it was to some degree accepted that they had to restrict their activities, since they felt they were having to do it while a review was going on and in the long term interests of the conservation of salmon stock.

My fishermen are worried because, far from their being part of a long-term conservation move, they are the only section which will have to make sacrifices to this end. Whether right or wrong, this is a widely held feeling and one with which I have great sympathy. The longer that we politicians delay—that responsibility is that of the hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State—the more protests and troubles we will save up for the future. He should appreciate this wide and genuine point of view.

I reinforce strongly what my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) said about experiments with commercial traps. I have mentioned this in all these debates and do not want to go into it tonight. I have criticised the amount of research done on the suitability of traps to Scottish rivers, compared with that done in other countries. Since this is a central matter in the Hunter Report, I hope that we will hear what experiments the Scottish Office is doing in this respect, which is fundamental to the implementation of the Report.

Secondly, have discussions with the industry been completed? Are we now merely waiting for the Secretary of State to make up his mind? It is important to us and to the industry to know whether the question is still open to discussion or whether it is by now only a question of the right hon. Gentleman making up his mind.

The question of fishing for salmon off Greenland and on the high seas is fundamental to the conservation of salmon stocks, one aspect of which we are discussing tonight in relation to the attitudes and feelings of inshore fishermen. Indeed, the whole fishing industry is anxious about any action which the Government may take internationally to achieve some form of agreement.

The Minister gave figures for salmon fishing off Greenland and on the high seas. While I appreciate the difficulty of getting agreement, I trust that the matter will be pursued vigorously. I particularly have in mind countries which, like Britain, have a great deal at stake, such as Canada, Norway and the Danish interests in Greenland.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)

Order. The hon. Gentleman is going out of order in talking about international agreements. That matter has in the past been ruled out of order when this subject has been under discussion.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith

I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I thought that since the Minister had raised the subject, I would be permitted a brief reference to it.

I simply want to know whether we are getting more co-operation from the countries to which I referred—which have rivers in which salmon breed and industries which they consider worth preserving—than we were getting two or three years ago.

10.42 p.m.

Mr. Buchan

This debate has been described as lachrymose. Considering the vigorous nature of the previous debate, I had expected this one to be more vigorous.

Underlying some of the comments that have been made about delay has been a recognition of the difficulties involved in implementing the Report. It is not true to say that the only reason for delay has been inadequacy on the part of the Government. Indeed, a Conservative Government, when faced with a similar situation, spent three years considering, but not implementing, the Bledisloe Report; and we are here concerned with a more complex subject.

There are a variety of views on this issue. There is the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), which the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) does not consider to be an intellectually tenable concept. All these matters must be carefully examined if we are to have a proper management of stocks. If hon. Gentlemen opposite press too hard, one may take draconian decisions in such cases.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith

We are concerned here not so much with intellectual concepts as with the practical problems that are involved in salmon fishing.

Mr. Buchan

The Tightness of an intellectual concept lies in its inherent practicability. I do not intend to rush these matters to please hon. Gentlemen opposite. If we rushed them we might not please them.

The Report does not provide all the answers to the problems that face us. For example, one issue thrown up in our consideration of the Report is that of improving access to fishing waters for ordinary anglers. We are all convinced that the extent of fishing waters open to anglers must be increased. The Report made certain suggestions about that. We are not sure that those recommendations are sufficiently radical to serve this purpose. In our debate upstairs I referred to my own sympathies. That would be one way of ending exclusiveness. There may be other ways perhaps falling short of public ownership but more rigorous and more radical than any envisaged by the Hunter Committee. It is this kind of issue over which we are prepared to take time to get the right solution.

I have sympathy with those—for instance, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) and the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns—who have said that one of the difficulties in this situation is the tendency amongst sea fishermen to believe that they alone have been singled out and penalised on this issue. As I said in our last debate, these are the people whom I know best. These are my people. I understand their point of view. I hear it not only from constituents, but also from relatives, so I know the problem. I cannot say, however, that it is the only kind of problem that is ever raised. There are other problems raised with inshore fishermen. I accept that the help we have given to inshore fishermen over the last three or four years in other directions has tended not to make arguments on this issue quite so sharp as they were under the régime of hon. Members opposite.

The point I made on the Greenland issue was not an excuse. I was saying something slightly different. I made the point that the argument around the problem of the Greenland fisheries was that we were basing our case upon the sensible management of our own resources and we could hardly pursue internationally an attempt to reach an agreement based upon the need for sensible management in a discriminating way of our own stocks if at the same time we were allowing a practice in our own native waters which by its nature was indiscriminate and not calculated to assist in proper management.

On the subject of the trap, this is part of the implementation of the Hunter Committee's Report. I said before, and I repeat, that I think that this Report should be taken in its entirety and the legislation should, too. The trap is one of its aspects. We cannot experiment in the way which has been mentioned, because we would require legislation before we could make it a permissible method of fishing, for the simple reason that no district body or body of proprietors has volunteered for such an investigation or experiment. Therefore, if it involves the compulsory purchase of land to install a trap, we should require legislation.

Hon. Members opposite say that no decision should be taken without research and experimentation. The prohibition introduced by hon. Members opposite was not done on the basis of experiment or research or even real analysis of the existing statistics. Their earlier decision was taken under pressure by vested interests, so they should be the last people to press us on the need for experimentation before taking decisions.

Mr. Maclennan

Has my hon. Friend considered the possibility of using the Highlands and Islands Development Act, 1965 as a means of enabling this experiment to be carried out for the benefit of the Highlands? Secondly, has he considered the possibility of conducting some of these tests upon the Department of Agriculture's own rivers, one of which—the Strathy—lies within my constituency?

Mr. Buchan

I do not want to pursue this question too strongly. If I were to do so, I should be under pressure from both sides to give in greater detail than I intend to give the nature of our consideration and discussion. I know the Strathy. I have considered this. It is not of itself at the moment the best of rivers in which an expensive experiment should be taking place. However, I note my hon. Friend's point.

10.50 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Campbell (Moray and Nairn)

With this kind of experiment, it is not so much a question of drift-netting. If the recommendation of the Hunter Committee is accepted it would mean that all net fishing on coasts and river mouths would be abolished over a period. It is that important question which really cannot be decided until there has been some experiment, with a trap or some other device.

Mr. Buchan

Strangely enough, I know the point. This is so. I was being asked about providing trap experimentation before we introduce legislation. I was pointing out that we cannot have trap experimentation until we introduce legislation, because we may be involved in a compulsory purchase to obtain a suitable river. The argument is therefore tautologous and falls.

Mr. Gordon Campbell

It is not a question of the argument falling; it means that it will be even longer before anything is done, and decided. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us when any legislation is to be brought forward to enable an experiment to take place?

Mr. Buchan

That is a different question. If the hon. Gentleman had asked me that at first I would have given him the answer, which is that I cannot tell him when we are to introduce legislation, as he knows. It is not a tautologous point, but perhaps an unnecessary one.

When I concluded the last debate I said that in stretching it to two years we hoped, although I made no promises—and I added that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) was too long in the tooth to accept promises—to bring in legislation in that time. I regret that we have not done so. I am confident that when we do it will be the kind of legislation which will provide for proper management of our rivers, give the right kind of access for the ordinary people of our country, and deal with one of the thorniest and most complex problems that it has ever been my good fortune to deal with.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the Salmon and Migratory Trout (Prohibition of Drift-net Fishing) (Extension) Order 1968, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th December, be approved.