HC Deb 19 May 1978 vol 950 cc1074-84

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Stallard.]

4.40 p.m.

Mr. Hamish Watt (Banff)

I note that the Minister who is to reply to the debate comes from the West of Scotland. I come from the North-East of Scotland. The matter that we are debating is entirely Scottish. There must be a message there for someone.

I welcome the opportunity to bring to the attention of the House and to the public at large the continuing and, inded, what is worse, the intensifying of the ban on the drift netting for salmon off the Scottish coast.

This ban was imposed on the fishermen of Scotland, all of whom at that time operated small boats of about 40 feet, in 1962. That measure which went quickly through the House, was described by Sir William Duthie, who was my predecessor but one as the Member of Parliament for Banff, as the worst piece of class legislation that ever went through Parliament. Sir William found it necessary to resign from the Tory Party in protest at the time. Since then, these fishermen have still been denied the opportunity to get a fair share of the catch of salmon which yearly return from their feeding grounds in the North Atlantic and which swim around the coast of Scotland seeking to return to their river of origin.

Let me make it clear at the outset that it is in everyone's interest to ensure that the salmon cycle continues in perpetuity and that there is no desire on the part of anyone in Scotland to seek to damage the salmon stocks. Scotland's fishermen have proved beyond doubt that they are the most responsible fishermen in the whole of the North Sea. They adopt conservation measures whenever any stock is in danger. The salmon is in no danger and the huge catches in recent years by the bag net and drag net operators surely prove this to be the case. The fishermen of Scotland are seeking only a reasonable share of the catch of the salmon that swim within three miles of the shore.

At present, because of the ban which was so unfairly imposed by a Tory Government in 1962, only two sets of people can get an opportunity to catch salmon. First are the riparian owners—individuals, trusts, or companies who believe that because they happen to own land on the banks of a river they have also some God-given right to dictate to other people how they should or should not conduct their business. No one is suggesting at this stage that salmon swimming in the rivers within the banks on their land do not belong to them. But in passing I should like to say that I am somewhat amused to find that the law says that these landowners may not take water from the river, but they claim that the fish that swim in the river are all theirs. I shall let that fly stick to the wall at the moment.

The second group of people who have the right to catch salmon are those operators who net the salmon at the mouth of the rivers as these salmon pass from salt water into fresh water. At present, these net operators totally close the mouth of the river for six days of the week, and the salmon have only about 24 hours out of the seven days in which they can run the gauntlet of the nets and reach the river.

The Minister knows better than I of the vast profits that have been made in four of the past five years by these salmon fishers. In some cases the lease to such fishing has become virtually a licence to print money. There are very few operators who would not gladly concede one day of the week so that the salmon could have 48 hours, or preferably 54 hours, in which to reach the lower reaches of their parent river. If this were to be the case and the mouth of the river were to be opened that bit longer, there would be salmon for everyone.

Everyone is well aware of the tremendous lobby that riparian owners, anglers and netting operators have, especially in the House, and of the continual shout that goes up whenever salmon angling is poor. But the fact that salmon are not rising to the angler does not mean that the salmon are not in the river. As the salmon do not feed at all while they are in the river, the wonder is that they ever rise to a lure at all. If the water level is not right or the weather is not suitable, the angler goes home in a huff blaming everybody but himself for his lack of luck. If that same fisherman came back to the upper tributaries of the main river in the dead of winter he would see salmon lying dead, dying or diseased and would realise the appalling waste of fish that would otherwise have reached the housewife's table at a reasonable price.

It is in a genuine desire to see that a fair proportion of the fish reach the market at a reasonable price that the sea fishermen round Scotland's coast want to have the right to fish for salmon under a strict licensing system such as has worked so successfully off the Northumberland coast all these years.

These fishermen are prepared to abide by whatever rules are drawn up and I commend the Northumberland scheme to the Government. The fishermen who have approached me and my colleagues in the SNP claim that they are even prepared to pay a reasonable levy per pound of salmon landed to pay for the stocking of every tribuntary with salmon fry—young salmon—as a double insurance in case nature has missed one tributary.

These men are further prepared to abide by rules governing the length of nets allocated per man and will abide by a quota placed on the number of salmon to be caught annually. Here they would take advice from scientists. But they are not prepared to abide by the continuation of a grossly unfair ban where two sections of the community, which are backed by high finance, are allowed exclusive access to this one fish stock, while they are totally denied it.

Even more disgraceful has been the action of certain of the riparian owners who virtually take the law into their own hands and promote one of their number to be a bailiff, who takes advantage of unfair laws to seek to act as some kind of Don Quixote and boards fishing vessels at sea and tries to arrest fishermen he suspects of poaching even when no policemen are present. This is a dangerous concept. The Government ought to look into the present situation and search their own conscience whether they wish to perpetuate this grossly unfair ban, which is in essence one law for the rich and another for the poor Is the Minister so proud of a situation where his Government, so-called Socialist Government, back the action of a self-confessed Fascist who believes that Adolf Hitler was right?

I would appreciate it if the Minister in his reply will tell the people of Scotland just how far he is prepared to go in backing the action of the dangerous gentleman with the double-barrelled name. Will he also tell the House how much public money was spent last year in trying to catch men whom he chooses to call poachers?

Everyone has heard of the unacceptable face of capitalism, but surely that face was at its ugliest in 1962 when this unfair and unrighteous ban was passed by the House. There was no real evidence that drift netting had caused a shortage of salmon at that time. Certainly there was disease around at that time.

How can anyone justify the claim that a drift net is a deadly weapon? These nets hang a maximum of three fathoms deep and fish can surely get round, under or over the nets if they choose. Drift netting can be carried out only in favourable weather. It can never be as deadly efficient as the sweep nets which are used in the rivers so that no salmon can pass them.

If there is a scarcity of salmon, why have the Minister and his colleagues never taken steps to regulate or monitor properly the actions of these net operators? Why is it that the Minister's counterparts in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in England, who have jurisdiction over the coasts of England, have never sought to impose such a ban in England? The Minister knows and should admit that the method of licensing small boats administered by the Northumberland fisheries committee works well, fairly and equitably. I do not blame Scottish fishermen for seeking parity with their near neighbours. They are also seeking parity with their partners in the EEC.

Surely the Minister sees that there is no legitimate ground for continuing this grossly unfair ban. There have been four Socialist Governments since 1962. Is it not time that we began to see the social face of Socialism? Surely it is time to bring an end of this "one law for the rich and another for the poor" syndrome.

Scottish fishermen are no longer prepared to be treated as second-class citizens. There has been increasing evidence of that in recent months. Some small boat operators have been driven to defy this unfair ban because of the shortage of other species of fish.

The Government must give strong evidence to justify the continuance of the ban and impose it equally throughout Britain. Indeed, they should attempt to impose it throughout the EEC. The fishermen of Scotland regard the ban as a fundamental denial of basic human rights. They request—indeed they demand—its immediate withdrawal.

4.52 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Hugh D. Brown)

The hon. Member made an interesting speech. He gave reasons why one of his predecessors resigned from the Tory Party. I thought that he might have told me his reasons for resigning from the Tory Party.

I have not time to go into such interesting topics as the unacceptable face of capitalism.

I recognise that this is a subject of growing public concern. But I notice that this concern is not shared by the SNP in its draft fishing policy statement to conference next weekend. There is no mention at all of the importance of salmon fishing, or of the problems raised by the hon. Member. Indeed, the only reference is a resolution supporting the Government line. I look forward with interest to see what happens next weekend in Edinburgh.

Acts of violence have occurred and threats of violence have been made. I am sure that, on reflection, the hon. Member would not wish to be associated with them. He said that fishermen are not prepared to accept the present system. I am sure that whatever his arguments he is not advocating that they should defy the law because if that were so we should have even more trouble than we have had in the past.

There is widespread misinformation and misunderstanding about the law and the reasons for it, and some degree of encouragement to break the law appears to have been given.

The issues at stake are not whether there should be a licensing system for the catching of salmon but whether methods of catching in the sea, by drift netting or other methods of gill-netting which are at present illegal in Scottish waters, should be made legal. Nor are they issues between the interests of poor local fishermen and wealthy salmon proprietors.

I remind the hon. Members of the facts of the situation. Recorded Scottish salmon catches, despite fluctuations, have shown a continuing decline in recent years and in 1977 totalled 1,081 tonnes for salmon, grilse and sea trout. The first sale value of the year's catch was approximately £4 million. The number of jobs in the coastal netting industry was approximately 1,250.

In addition, the annual economic value of the angling interest is substantial and has been estimated at £10 million to £15 million by my Department. I quote these figures not only to illustrate that the salmon is of prime economic importance to Scotland, particularly to the rural and remote areas, but to show that the issue is not just between the interests of local fishermen and salmon proprietors.

I make no apology, therefore, for saying that my first concern is with the conservation of salmon stocks. Apart from the effects on young stock in the rivers of predation and pollution, they are vulnerable on the long migration at sea, particularly to heavy predation by seals, and on their return have to run the gauntlet of drift nets and fixed nets round our coasts. Fortunately, perhaps, the present legal methods of catching—by rod and by sweep net in rivers and by fixed nets on coasts, with the restrictions on their use, such as close times, which are imposed by law—have served to provide a balance which has succeeded in conserving our stocks.

The Hunter Committee accepted this but recommended that conservation measures should be taken further. Its aim was to restrict catching to the rivers of origin, or locations close to rivers of origin, so that individual river stocks could be managed on a self-sustaining basis. Although we have not yet been able to achieve this, as a policy it has been endorsed by international expert opinion, and it is the basis of existing international conventions and of discussions now going on at the Law of the Sea Conference.

I am surprised by the hon. Gentleman's attitude in this matter. He is usually defending the authority of the Law of the Sea Conference in other respects in terms of fishing limits, but he does not seem willing to accept the trend in international conventions even towards tightening up and proceeding on a river basis, avoiding any catching at sea whatsoever. Moreover, it has been accepted as the objective of Government policy by successive Administrations.

The trouble with drift netting is that with the introduction of new technology in the shape of monofilament nets it has become a very deadly method catching salmon. But because fish are damaged and some drop out of nets, it is a wasteful and unsatisfactory method. Most important, it is indiscriminate, taking runs of salmon as they make their way up the coast without regard to the conservation of stocks of individual rivers.

The Hunter Committee in 1963 looked at the then developing situation exhaustively and considered whether the drift net could be the basis of a controlled licensed system for catching salmon. Its conclusion—which is equally valid today—is that it would not provide a system which could be effectively regulated and controlled throughout Scottish waters. In effect, licensed fishing would merely lead to unlicensed fishing.

The hon. Member said that a licensing system operates effectively in English waters, and the fishermen claim they would be capable of enforcing a licensing system themselves. I shall come back to that point. I must tell the hon. Member about other countries' experience of netting salmon at sea.

Canada has largely banned it because of the threat to her stocks due to drift netting at sea. Iceland—a country whose virtues in fishing policy are often extolled by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends—has never allowed it. It is allowed under licence by Norway and Ireland. Other European countries have, in the past, for one reason or another, virtually exterminated their own salmon stocks.

The Irish, whose experience is much more relevant to us, have a licensed drift-net fishery, and along with it a flourishing illegal fishery which has put stocks in jeopardy, and the Irish Government are making strenuous efforts to retrieve the situation. It is an object lesson for Scotland, where, fortunately, salmon stocks have been reasonably maintained over the years. Our nearest neighbour, England, lost much of its salmon stocks in years gone by—stocks are probably little more than one-tenth of Scottish stocks—and if the hon. Member wishes to follow the English example of introducing drift netting as a legal method, Scottish stocks would certainly go the same way. Let me explain the situation to him as between England and Scotland.

The licensed fishery which operates in England is largely confined to the Northumbrian coast. Catches in this area average 182 tonnes of salmon per annum, whereas coastal catches elsewhere in England and Wales are no more than 78 tonnes. The main reason is that tagging results suggest that of the total Northumbrian catch the bulk, perhaps more than 70 per cent., of these salmon are making their way back to Scottish rivers. I would have expected the hon. Member to display his usual party opportunism in a campaign to get the Northumbrians to stop drift netting rather than to want to join them. It is true that the Northumbrian fishery is a licensed fishery regulated by the Northumbrian Water Authority, by byelaw.

The number of licences issued is severely restricted to those who traditionally held them and it is gradually being reduced, so the trend is not in the direction that the hon. Member is advocating. The historical difference between England and Scotland is that in England there is a public right of fishing for salmon in the sea—which is controlled by licensing—whereas in Scotland the rights in the foreshore are held privately by the Crown where they have not been the subject of a grant of title to other persons, and are leased to fishermen by the Crown Estate Commissioners.

However any Scottish fisherman wishing to fish for salmon can offer for a Crown lease for coastal netting. Numbers of Scottish fishermen do hold these leases, but in operating them they must observe the law and fish by the traditional legal methods, that is, the sweep-net or bag net, and so on. Thus, Scottish fishermen are not prohibited from fishing for salmon. They can bid for a lease but they must fish by the acknowledged methods with their built-in restrictions in the interests of conservation.

The alternative of drift netting illegally is, of course, a tempting choice. It offers big catches and quick profits. It has been estimated by people in the trade that illegal catches in 1977 were worth £800,000. But as I have said, the level of catches would not last for long if drift netting were allowed as a legal method of fishing.

Mr. Watt

Does the Minister agree that the number of salmon that go "out of the back door" from the rivers and from netting stations around our shores amount to about that figure in value? I am sure that the Minister knows that not every salmon taken out of the rivers is recorded.

Mr. Brown

Yes, but that is different from suggesting that they are caught by illegal methods. That is the worrying factor in the figure that I have given. The level of catches would not last for long if drift netting were allowed as a legal method of fishing.

The hon. Member has said that if licensing can work in the Northumbrian area, why not in Scotland. There is a simple answer. The Northumbrians are operating on a small scale on the fringe of the Scottish salmon industry and their fishery largely depends on Scottish stocks being rigorously protected by the present methods of fishing.

It would be very different to have the same system applied to the whole of the Scottish salmon stock all the way round the coast. Regulation and enforcement in the interests of conservation on an appropriate scale would be impossible. I acknowledge and appreciate the good faith in which the fishermen advance the argument that they themselves having collaborated in licensing arrangements for herring and no doubt in the future for other species could exercise discipline over salmon fishing. I doubt whether they have appreciated the differences. For instance, it would be difficult to land and sell a valuable herring catch unobtrusively, though from time to time I hear rumours that there is a wee bit of doubt—

Mr. Watt

rose—

Mr. Brown

I shall give way. There are always rumours that perhaps not every herring landed is officially recorded. I ask the hon. Member to consider the difference. An individual salmon can be worth as much as £20. It is easy to smuggle out one fish. I know that herring are scarce, but an individual herring is not yet worth £20, otherwise I suspect that there would be quite a few herring coming through illegal marketing sources.

Mr. Watt

The Minister appears to have lost the point. The stock of salmon in a river depends not on the number of fish reaching the top waters but on the stock of food in that river. Suppose that six salmon—cocks and hens—get to the top water, they will provide sufficient young salmon to utilise the whole food stock in that river, and find their way back to the sea. There are too many salmon reaching the top waters that have not been caught by the fishermen.

Mr. Brown

I am not sure that the hon. Member is right, and I am sure that he would not claim to be an expert on the sex life and the feeding habits of salmon. There is some experimentation going on in salmon ranching at present which might assist in increasing the number of fish in the rivers. In all my deliberations and discussions I have never heard it seriously argued that the situation is caused by lack of food. I have never heard that put forcefully by any of the experts or parties concerned.

If there is to be a system of licensing we would be in real difficulties in deciding who should get those licences—anyone or the highest bidders? How would catches be controlled—by close times, by length of net or quotas? Nevertheless it is tempting Providence to think that there would not be an encouragement almost to illegality, given the price of a single salmon at £20. With the best will in the world the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, for which I have great respect, would find it hard to cope with the mavericks both inside and outside its ranks, who are only interested in a quick killing.

There is no doubt that the only way in which to preserve Scottish salmon stocks is to ensure that they are caught only in the rivers and on the coasts, and not in the sea.

I hope that I have shown that there are good reasons why we must uphold the current policy and enforce the present law. I deplore most strongly the public encouragement that has been given that there is any kind of moral right or reason for breaking the law. It gives me no pleasure to see the Navy and our protection fleet taking action against our own fishermen. But the law must be observed and I hope that fishermen will understand that as in the past there are good reasons why this should be so.

Within the context of wider fishing issues we must enhance our reputation on the conservation of fish stocks of all species within our control.

Equally, we should apply that to salmon and I hope that the hon. Member for Banff will help to convey to interests outside our determination to ensure the continuation of a valuable species of fish which enhances tourism and gives jobs to many people in Scotland. Up to now the present system has proved to be the best.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes past Five o'clock.