HC Deb 02 March 1976 vol 906 cc1232-43
Sir John Gilmour

I beg to move Amendment No. 33, in page 11, column 4, line 8, leave out '£100' and insert '£1.'

Mr. Speaker

With this amendment it will be convenient to discuss Amendment No. 34, in page 11, column 5, line 9, leave out '£200' and insert '£2'.

Sir J. Gilmour

I raised this matter in the Standing Committee because a firm at Montrose was prosecuted under Section 23 of the 1868 Act. I understand that that was the first time that any prosecution has been made under that Act.

It did not seem practical or possible under the Bill to table an amendment which made provision in respect of the 1868 Act. Under Schedule 2 to the Government seek permission to upgrade the financial penalties for various offences under the 1868 Act. This appears to be a technical infringement which is connected with whether pins that are hammered into the sand are or are not removed during the close season. It could not possibly be said that fish were being taken illegally if the pins were left in. Therefore, it is not right to accept an increase in the penalty proposed in the Schedule. As it appears to be a technical offence, the fine should be reduced to the minimum to show that it is not right for recourse to law to be taken in this instance.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown

I doubt that the House would like a long explanation from me on the merits or otherwise of Section 23 of the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1868. The hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) has raised this subject with me. It is probably a matter for the courts. If the hon. Gentleman wants to raise it with me again, I shall be more than happy to see whether there is any way to clarify it.

The amendment does not concern the substance of the Bill, but the hon. Member has performed a duty in drawing attention to something which has given rise to protests from those who dispute how the law operates. I hope that with this explanation the hon. Gentleman will seek to withdraw his amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Order for Third Reading read—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified].

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. Monro

This is a sad end to what we all hoped would be a better Bill. Bearing in mind that the Bill stemmed originally from the great thoughts of the Hunter Report, and subsequently from the White Paper in 1971, and that it set out on the provision of additional trout fishing, we have seen it boil down to something that is not nearly as satisfactory as we thought it would be.

I shall not add to my criticism of Clause 1 as it now stands criticism of the major drafting changes of the last week and the fact that there was so little consultation with those who had helped to save the Bill in Committee—Liberal Members and Conservative Members—before the amendments were presented over the weekend. We hope that there will be a good deal of tidying up in another place.

However, for all that, we still wish the Bill well in that we want more trout fishing made available. I am glad that through the Bill we have clarified the position about the legality of trout fishing, which for far too long has been considered the right of anyone when that has not been the true position.

The changes that the Government have made tonight leave a great deal to be decided and clarified, particularly in relation to the new consultative committee. That certainly in no way takes the place of the fishery board proposal in the long term, when we come to legislating for salmon fishing, or of an advisory committee, as put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour), which would advise the Secretary of State on the practicalities of fishing improvement and on whether at any one time salmon and trout fishing can be harmonised in any particular area.

It is clear that the Minister now has no practical advisers. He has only the consultative committee, which will be formed basically of anglers who may not have any particular knowledge or skill in river management, advising him on protection orders and whether certain waters shall be made available. We firmly believe that what is required is advice on fishings as a whole from much more experienced people. I hope that the Government will examine this matter very carefully and think again, even before the Bill leaves another place, because at present the consultative committee is still very vague in the Government's mind. A great deal of clarification is required before it can be set up.

We have examined the protection order system and it should be of practical assistance, but I still strongly criticise the lack of powers of the wardens who are to implement the orders. I do not understand the Minister's attitude that a warden can do his job with virtually no powers. At least the wardens should have the powers of a water bailiff. In any event, it seems unnecessary to duplicate a service which might well be provided by extending the water bailiffs' powers to deal with salmon and trout poaching.

The Minister's attitude to finance is disappointing. Surely what we asked for in Clause 5 was reasonable. The hon. Gentleman could have given way, if only so that when the additional resources are required there will be an opportunity to debate them in the House.

My hon. Friends and I hope that the Bill will be still further improved in another place. I hope that the Government will not conclude their thinking. It seems that only in the past week or so have they begun to realise what is and is not in the Bill. It would have been advantageous to the Bill and to trout fishing in Scotland if the Government had thought deeply but swiftly about some of the proposals that have been put forward tonight. If they are prepared to introduce amendments in another place, I shall be gratified that some positive and constructive action can be accredited to tonight's proceedings, which by and large I have found thoroughly disappointing.

10.42 p.m.

Mr. David Lambie (Central Ayrshire)

This was a bad Bill, and the amendments that the Government have accepted in Committee and on Report have not made it a good Bill. In those circumstances I accept the status quo. I accept that we should continue with the present legislation.

The Hunter Committee's Report was published in 1965. Over 10 years have elapsed since its publication, and we have a Bill which has received the mild approval of Conservatives. The Bill was produced by a Labour Government, but it continues the Tory philosophy that applies to land or anything applying to land.

From 1965 to 1970 the Labour Government had an opportunity of making a fundamental review of the Scottish fisheries following publication of the Hunter Report. From 1970 to 1974 the Conservative Government had an equal opportunity. The Opposition have no right to criticise the Government for doing nothing. At least the Government have produced a Bill. The Conservatives produced nothing. The Opposition Members who are now on the Front Bench were in control four years ago.

The Government should have taken the opportunity to introduce a fundamental change in the fishing rights and facilities in Scotland. In the area I represent in Ayrshire, fishing is one of the major leisure occupations of the working man. The Government should have introduced a Bill to extend the facilities of the working man. They should have hammered the power of the landlords to prohibit fishing by ordinary working people who do not have the money to finance fishing on various stretches of river.

We should scrap the Bill. We should leave the Scottish Assembly, which I hope will be in power in Scotland in 1977 or 1978, to grasp the nettle of the Scottish fisheries. We should leave it to the Scottish Assembly, which will be a purely Scottish body, to deal with this fundamental problem affecting a large number of people in Scotland. For these reasons, I shall oppose the Third Reading of the Bill.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Wilson

For once I share the view expressed by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie). On Second Reading there was little response from the angling clubs. This was regrettable. But what has happened since is that the angling bodies, improvement associations, the clubs and anglers in general have become vociferous because they have realised the effect of the Bill.

The main deficiencies are to be found in relation to Clause 1. That provision will remove rights which have been enjoyed for many years. If the Government had come up with provisions aimed at protecting fishermen's interests, the attitude of fishermen in general might have been more sympathetic to the Bill. This matter has now been boiling away for a period of 10 years, if not longer. From time to time angling associations have pointed to the need to implement the Hunter Report, but if they had examined that Report more closely they might have taken a different view. They thought that the time for action had arrived, but when they realised what the Government had in mind their views became jaundiced. They took the view that rights were being removed from them for very little benefit to anglers.

I shall not go into all the arguments because they have been fully dealt with in earlier stages of the Bill's progress, but I am very much influenced by the fact that there appears to be no effective control in the making of protection orders. I appreciate that the Government have introduced a number of amendments to the Bill. However, I have taken steps to canvass opinion among the angling fraternity, and that opinion is strongly to the effect that the Bill is a bad one and that it has been improved only marginally in the course of its passage through the House. Anglers take the view that they have exchanged the freedom to fish for brown trout for insufficient benefits in return. Many anglers would be willing to be co-operative if they believed that the Bill would lead to greater access to new waters and to an improvement in the quality of fishings. If that were the case, they would be willing to accept a change in the legal framework. Unfortunately, that opportunity has been wasted and anglers are being offered a mess of fish pottage in exchange for the loss of their rights. Those rights are taken seriously by anglers, and they feel strongly about this issue. Therefore, I have no hesitation in advising my hon. Friends to vote against the Third Reading of the Bill.

10.49 p.m.

Mr. Canavan

When the Bill was first introduced, many people, particularly those in Government circles, thought that it would sneak through unopposed because they probably considered that most people would regard it as a rather insignificant measure. But the Bill obviously has had a stormy passage; it has aroused hostility among anglers and they have made representations to hon. Members, including myself. We have tried to raise their points and to draft amendments to cover their suggestions, but we have not had much co-operation from the Government on many of these matters.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig). He is not able to be here tonight because of illness. I understand that he is in hospital. If he were here, I am sure that his voice would be raised in opposition. He was one of the Bill's most vociferous opponents in Committee, and I was grateful for his support in formulating amendments and trying, albeit in vain, to get the Government to support them.

The famous meeting at the Golden Lion was perhaps the greatest achievement arising out of all the representations made by other hon. Members and myself. If one good thing came out of the Golden Lion meeting, it was the Government amendment incorporated into the Bill tonight which sets up a consultative body of anglers which will be involved at an early stage in negotiations with the Secretary of State about whether the terms of protection orders are fair. However, this body is far too weak and impotent to deal with the problem of making Scottish fisheries more accessible.

Despite small improvements which have been made, the Bill has many imperfections and weaknesses. It is claimed that the basis of the Bill is protection in return for access. But this rests on a voluntary basis. Criticism of this is not, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary sometimes seems to suspect, extremist Left-wing claptrap. Even the hon. Member for Roxburgh-Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel), who is not known for his Left-wing radical tendencies, has asked why the basis of the Bill should be purely voluntary.

If the Labour Government are waiting to change the law of this country until they have the agreement of landlords, fishing syndicates and similar over- privileged groups, they must be living in cloud-cuckoo-land. We shall never get the agreement of such people, and we were not elected to go on our knees and ask for their voluntary co-operation. We were elected by a majority in Scotland and the United Kingdom to take power from those people, not to kow-tow to them and talk about voluntary agreements.

The Bill's biggest loophole is one through which even the most stupid landlord will be able to drive a horse and cart. Landlords will be allowed to get indirect benefits from the protection of surrounding areas while still not allowing access to their stretch of water. I have no doubt that many landlords, selfish as they often are, will be tempted to do just that.

There is little in the Bill which fulfils the policy laid down by the annual conference and the Scottish conferences of the Labour Party. Many people in the rank and file of the party in Scotland, who have worked hard in formulating policy, will be very disappointed with the Bill.

In deciding whether to vote against the Government—which is something I do not like and do only infrequently after a great deal of reflection—I have to consider how the Bill, with all its imperfections, compares with the status quo. How does it compare with existing legislation? Is it an improvement on existing legislation? Will it help to make things better for the ordinary working-class angler? Will it give him more access? Is it an improvement on the present situation? I do not think that it is, and I am sure that the majority of Scottish anglers would agree with me.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. David Steel

The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) fairly put the dilemma of those who have been critical of parts of the Bill. The judgment we have to make on Third Reading is whether on balance it is better to vote for the Bill, with all its imperfections, or retain the status quo. The hon. Gentleman told us that he would not indulge in his usual Left-wing claptrap. He did not, and he seized ably on the deficiencies of the Bill. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will not be embarrassed by my saying that I am in the awkward position of coming down off the fence on his side, despite the deficiencies of the Bill, of which we have heard many times and which are still debatable in another place.

Is the Bill, defective though it is, better than the status quo? At a meeting I had, not in a hotel in Stirling but in the Railway Hotel in Newton St. Boswells, I met representatives of 5,000 anglers who said that although they were critical of parts of the Bill they accepted that it was a step forward.

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) is not able to be with us tonight. He made many contributions in Committee. When I listen to him and the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) I get the impression that the angling clubs in Dundee have been late in getting information about the Bill—which cannot be entirely their fault—and have not understood what it is about.

Angling clubs vary very much, and there is a certain amount of internecine war among them. Some control relatively prosperous and good fishing waters in the Tweed basin and others control poor waters. They vary widely, but they are all agreed that there is no question of a right being taken away by the Bill, unless one is talking of the chaotic right for anyone to go anywhere and fish freely, which results in the lack of proper control and no development of fishing. That is the position now. The unanimous view of all those clubs is that the Bill is a step in the right direction. They are critical of parts of the Bill, as I have been and will continue to be, but on balance they regard it as an improvement on the status quo.

I would have expected much better of the Government, but if one has to make a judgment, as one does on Third Reading, whether to accept the Bill or the chaos that we have, I prefer the Bill as a step forward and I hope that some of its deficiencies will be improved in another place.

10.59 p.m.

Mr. Dalyell

The Under-Secretary of State has some cause to feel a bit ill done by. As all of us who have been corresponding with him know, the vociferous complaints came very late in the day. I accept that the advisory committee, unlike many advisory committees, may be mean- ingful. If the anglers continue to complain, be it on their own heads for not having come to an agreement between themselves.

I was not on the Committee because of European Parliament commitments, but I read a great deal of the reports of the debates. Are we sure that the best way to handle this vexatious problem is not on the basis of the regions? One thing that strikes me from the Committee debates is that the problems are very different on the Spey and the Tweed, in the Highlands and the South-West. The best solution would have been to give the regions the powers to do as they saw fit, according to the needs of their own areas.

11.1 p.m.

Sir John Gilmour

It would be a great mistake not to give the Bill a Third Reading. The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) was indeed talking claptrap. One thing we have learned during these debates is that angling is the largest participator sport in the country. The hon. Member's description of a few anglers being oppressed by many landlords is the complete reverse of the truth. I suspect that many of the troubles ventilated at the famous meeting at the Golden Lion Hotel were raised by people who had been fishing illegally and who were disturbed at the prospect of having to pay.

Mr. Canavan

I do not dispute that the numerical strength of the angling community is much greater than that of the landlords, but power is not proportionately shared. That is what democracy is all about, to see that the majority, and not the land-owning minority, have power.

Sir J. Gilmour

That is a new concept. I was under the impression that our system was based on the principle of one man, one vote. I do not know how the hon. Gentleman can suddenly produce a class of people with so much more power than anyone else.

Mrs. Margaret Bain (Dunbartonshire, East)

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a great difference between one man, one vote and one man, one river?

Sir J. Gilmour

No, I do not think there is. We are talking about democracy and the powers of discussion: there is nothing in this at all. Nor would it be any help to transfer one river to 100 people. There would still be just as many disadvantages.

What some people do not realise is that before this Bill fishing for trout has not been an offence. Making it an offence in protected waters is a step in the right direction, but we might have saved a good deal of trouble if we had simply made trout a protected species.

11.4 p.m.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown

I shall certainly be brief. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That is the best response to anything I have said all night.

If I had known that the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) was going to make the speech he has just made, I might have invited him to share the platform with me at the Golden Lion Hotel.

I must protest at some of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan). It is comforting to appear to be a Left-winger by talking about people going on their knees to landlords. That is exactly the position anglers are in at the moment—unless they have rights from some publicly-owned body, otherwise they would not be fishing at all. They are fishing on rivers only because they have permission from a landlord.

I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire has acquired a reputation for talking claptrap, because some of his ideas are good. But he did not do justice to those of us who have some knowledge of the position. It is unfair of him to use language of the kind that he did when we are trying, successfully I think, to create better opportunities for more anglers in Scotland. Therefore, although my hon. Friend is entitled to express his disagreement, I hope that he will not overdo the jargon and that he will look carefully at some of the facts, however unpleasant he may find them.

May I also say to SNP Members—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I get complaints if I ignore their points of view. When I have the courtesy to make a passing reference to them, I find again

that they are up to their usual opportunistic tricks. They suggested a new clause which contained the principle of protection and for making fishing for trout without a permit an offence—the very matter which gave rise to so much of the misunderstanding about the Bill. I have heard people, including hon. Members, quoting the Hunter Report and the White Paper produced by the previous Administration as though they bore some relation to this Bill. It is not true that the Bill stemmed from the Hunter Report. This is a concept on a voluntary basis which we thought would work, and it has achieved the effect of injecting some discussion among those in fishing circles.

Mr. Canavan

I can remember asking my hon. Friend, in a Parliamentary Question last Session, whether the Government intended to introduce proposals based on the recommendations in the Hunter Report. The reply that I received was to the effect that the Government hoped to introduce such legislation in the near future. Is this the legislation or may we expect another Bill quite soon based on those recommendations?

Mr. Hugh D. Brown

I am quite good, but I cannot remember everything that I have said in the past. I should need to look at what I said on that occasion before answering that question. But there has never been a statement by me or by anyone else that this Bill is connected with or flows from any recommendations in the Hunter Report. It has always been the Government's intention to follow the Hunter Report, and it may be true that some reply was given to the effect that it was a matter for future legislation. I cannot clear up the matter any further than that.

We are the first Government since publication of the Hunter Report to make a start in doing something positive about brown trout fishing in Scotland. I am sure that the Bill will command support from anglers when they understand better what we are after. I hope that it will command support from the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 99, Noes 16.

Division No. 78.] AYES [11.9 p.m.
Armstrong, Ernest Beith, A. J. Bray, Dr Jeremy
Ashton, Joe Bidwell, Sydney Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Booth, Rt Hon Albert Buchan, Norman
Buchanan, Richard Judd, Frank Rowlands, Ted
Campbell, Ian Kerr, Russell Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)
Carmichael, Neil Lamond, James Skinner, Dennis
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S) Leadbilter, Ted Small, William
Cohen, Stanley Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton and Slough) Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C) Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill) Mabon, Dr J. Dickson Spearing, Nigel
Crawshaw, Richard McCartney, Hugh Spriggs, Leslie
Cryer, Bob McElhone, Frank Stallard, A. W.
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh) Mackenzie, Gregor Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Dalyell, Tam Mackintosh, John P. Stoddart, David
Deakins, Eric Maclennan, Robert Stott, Roger
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C) Strang Gavin
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund Madden, Max Taylor, Mrs Ann (Botton W)
Dempsey, James Magee, Bryan Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Dormant), J. D. Marks, Kenneth Tinn james
Duffy, A. E. P. Marquand, David Urwin T W
Dunrn, James A, Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole) Wainwrlght.'Edwin (Dearne V)
English, Michael Maynard, Miss Joan Walker, Terry (kingswood)
Ewing, Harry (Stirling) Mellish, R. Hon Robert Ward Michael
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E. Millan, Bruce Wellbeloved, James
Flannery, Martin Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride) White James (Pollock)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin) Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King Whitlock, William
Gay, Hamish Oakes Gordon Whitlock, William
Hardy, Peter Parry, Robert Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Harper, Joseph Penhaligon, David Woodall, Alec
Harrison, Walter (Wakelield) Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Woof Robert
Hart, Rt Hon Judith Roderick, Caerwyn Young, Davia (Botton E)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) Rodgers, George (Chorley) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Hunter, Adam Rooker, J. W. Mr. James Hamilton and
Jones, Alec (Rhondda) Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock) Mr. Donald Coleman.
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
NOFS
Bain, Mrs Margaret Sillars, James Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Crawford, Douglas Stewart, Donald (Western Isles) Wise, Mrs Audrey
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray) Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Henderson, Douglas Thompson, George TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
MacCormick, Iain Thorne, Stan (Preston South) Mr. David Lambie and
Raid, George Watt, Hamlsh Mr. Dennis Caravan.
Robertson, John (Paisley) Welsh, Andrew

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed.